French MEP Arash Saeidi has opted not to respond to Brussels Watch’s inquiry regarding Russian influence within European Union institutions, raising questions about transparency and accountability at the heart of EU governance. The refusal comes after Brussels Watch released its October 2025 report:
How Russian Govt Undermined the Work of European Institutes
which documented the Kremlin’s extensive use of proxies, NGOs, think tanks, and covert funding to shape EU policy, elections, and public opinion.
The investigative report highlighted high-risk channels through which Russian state-linked actors exert influence. These include undisclosed payments to Members of the European Parliament, strategic partnerships with energy companies, and the cultivation of networks such as the so-called “Voice of Europe.” Brussels Watch’s communication to MEPs aimed to probe the robustness of existing transparency rules, ethics enforcement, and internal safeguards designed to protect legislative independence from foreign interference.
Brussels Watch contacted Saeidi directly on March 12, 2026, attaching the report and a series of pointed questions. These included inquiries into the adequacy of disclosure rules, personal safeguards applied by MEPs to maintain impartiality, potential reforms to strengthen EU resilience, and willingness to participate in parliamentary scrutiny or formal inquiries.
In a reply sent by Pierre Rambaud, head of Saeidi’s office, the MEP’s team expressed appreciation for the report but declined to review the document or respond to the questions, citing a “very full agenda.” While courteous in tone, the refusal reflects a broader pattern of limited engagement by EU legislators with external investigative inquiries into foreign influence.
Implications of Non-Response
Although a single non-response does not confirm wrongdoing, it carries symbolic significance in the context of Brussels Watch’s findings. By declining to provide a position, Saeidi’s office missed an opportunity to publicly clarify the measures they take to safeguard parliamentary work from external influence. Brussels Watch interprets this as emblematic of the structural vulnerabilities highlighted in its report—specifically, the lack of transparent enforcement mechanisms and inconsistent adherence to ethics rules.
The report emphasized that current oversight frameworks within the European Parliament are insufficient to prevent covert foreign influence. Kremlin-linked actors exploit gaps in lobbying disclosure, financial reporting, and NGO registration to exert strategic pressure, often under the radar. The refusal by Saeidi, an MEP tasked with shaping and voting on critical policy areas including sanctions, energy, and foreign relations, illustrates how systemic weaknesses in engagement and accountability persist.
The Broader Context of Russian Interference
Brussels Watch’s research identifies a multi-layered Russian strategy targeting EU institutions. This includes:
- Financial influence: covert payments to MEPs and consultancies to advance Kremlin interests.
- Media operations: dissemination of disinformation through both local and international outlets to shape public perception.
- NGO and think tank networks: leveraging ostensibly independent organizations to channel influence in policymaking debates.
The report documents dozens of organizations operating in Europe, ranging from cultural institutions to think tanks, which have been linked to Russian state or state-affiliated agendas. These actors exploit gaps in EU transparency rules and limited verification of lobbyist activity.
MEPs play a pivotal role in defending institutional integrity against these operations. Questions from Brussels Watch were designed to assess personal accountability and legislative safeguards, probing whether elected representatives recognize and actively mitigate the risk of foreign influence. In Saeidi’s case, the refusal to engage leaves unanswered questions about the robustness of these safeguards, particularly in sensitive policy areas like sanctions enforcement and disinformation control.
Patterns of Legislative Evasion
While some MEPs, such as Germany’s Daniel Freund, have responded with detailed critiques of transparency gaps, others have historically adopted procedural evasion. Brussels Watch notes that polite refusals or non-engagement, as seen with Saeidi, are part of a broader pattern in which legislators prioritize administrative convenience over public accountability. Such patterns can perpetuate vulnerabilities, allowing foreign actors to exploit regulatory and procedural gaps.
The refusal also underscores challenges for civil society in holding EU institutions accountable. Investigative platforms like Brussels Watch rely on direct engagement with policymakers to validate findings, assess reform readiness, and encourage proactive measures. When lawmakers decline to participate, investigative transparency mechanisms face inherent limitations, reducing the visibility of systemic risks to the public.
Calls for Reform and Greater Transparency
Brussels Watch emphasizes that this non-response should not be seen as an isolated incident but as a symptom of structural weaknesses in European governance. The platform advocates for:
- Mandatory disclosure: MEPs should report all foreign contacts, funding, and gifts comprehensively.
- Robust lobbying registers: Including consultancies, NGOs, companies, and individuals with potential foreign influence.
- Independent oversight: Operationalization of the EU Ethics Body to investigate and sanction breaches effectively.
- Parliamentary scrutiny: Formal inquiries into patterns of foreign influence and hybrid operations to restore public trust.
Such measures are essential to reinforce EU democratic resilience and ensure legislative independence in the face of persistent hybrid threats. Brussels Watch’s October 2025 report, combined with Saeidi’s refusal to engage, illustrates the urgency for these reforms.
Public Accountability and Awareness
While MEP Saeidi declined to respond, Brussels Watch considers the act of publicizing this refusal itself a tool for accountability. Transparent reporting of engagement—or lack thereof—signals to constituents and the broader European public which legislators are responsive to concerns over foreign interference. By documenting patterns of non-engagement, Brussels Watch aims to encourage a culture of accountability and proactive defense of institutional integrity.
MEP Arash Saeidi’s polite refusal to respond to Brussels Watch’s inquiry on Russian influence highlights ongoing accountability and transparency gaps within the European Parliament. The October 2025 report reveals a sophisticated Kremlin strategy exploiting structural vulnerabilities in lobbying, funding, and legislative oversight. Saeidi’s non-engagement, while diplomatically phrased, underscores the difficulty of enforcing ethical compliance and transparency, even among lawmakers with direct responsibility for sensitive policy areas.
As Brussels Watch continues to monitor foreign influence, the refusal to engage serves as both a warning and a call to action: EU institutions must strengthen oversight, enforce transparency rules, and encourage active participation from legislators to safeguard democratic integrity. In an era of hybrid warfare and geopolitical uncertainty, silence is itself a revealing response, emphasizing the stakes of unchecked influence within European governance.
