Pierre Moscovici, member of the European Court of Auditors and former Minister of the Economy, was the guest of franceinfo on Monday June 1. He returned to the controversy linked to the renewal of Xenia Fedorova’s residence permit and to the presence of figures accused of relaying Kremlin propaganda in certain French media, before discussing the violence that occurred after the PSG-Arsenal match and the debate on the response of the State to the thugs.
This text corresponds to part of the transcription of the interview above. Click on the video to watch it in full.
Sonia Chironi: “Propagandist who serves Putin’s soup”, this is how Jean-Noël Barrot described Xenia Fedorova. How can we explain that in 2024, when two years earlier, the pro-Kremlin television channel that she directed had been banned from broadcasting on European soil for continuous and concerted propaganda action which directly and seriously threatens public order and security, she obtained this renewal of her residence permit? Can we really imagine that this was done automatically by an official from the police headquarters? That the top of the state has not looked at this matter?
Pierre Moscovici: I have just heard the explanations given. I don’t have the information to say if it’s normal, not normal, simple, not simple, who intervened or not. I have no suspicions a priori. But it seems to me that the real problem is not the residence permit. It is the fact that, if I understood correctly, this lady operates today in a media. She was a propagandist.
In several media owned by Vincent Bolloré.
She was a Putin propagandist. She remains a Putin propagandist. She was on the media called RT. It was banned. And now she is propaganda for Putin, in the same way, with the same terms, perhaps a little lighter today, on a media from the Bolloré group. The problem, for me, is there. It’s a culture war issue, in a way. I don’t see why, basically, it was banned on RT and why it is authorized on another media today. This is the real problem.
The residence permit diverts the question a little because it possibly involves something that the government would have done or not done. I have no accusation to make of that nature. On the other hand, I see what she does. This seems to me to come more from her than, in fact, from the Ministry of the Interior. I have no reason to suspect what Laurent Nunes says. And I find that this shifts, basically, the ground of the real problem, which is its presence in the media, the propaganda that it conducts and that it assumes, and not the residence permit which is… well, we will clarify all that. I remind you that, if I am well informed, you can also withdraw a residence permit even when it has been granted. And the Minister of the Interior also said it this morning.
As she is an influencer, we could withdraw her residence permit. I’m not pleading for that, I’m simply saying that the real problem, for me, is not the residence permit. It is the fact that she has, for once, the right to asylum on a channel to make propaganda for Vladimir Putin. And I still remind you that Vladimir Putin is the man who attacked and invaded Ukraine. And that Russia, for us, is a potential threat. After Ukraine, there will be other Russian interventions if we do not stop it in Ukraine. And you know that hybrid warfare, information warfare, drone warfare, threats… Russia is at war, is already at war, from this point of view, against us.
We are talking about a private media which employs absolutely whoever it wants, which defends the freedom of expression of its columnists. Is there not a responsibility to be taken on the side of the government, of the French state, when we claim to be in hybrid war, when we claim to be fighting propaganda? Is there not a responsibility to be taken and, in these cases, to actually expel this person?
Frankly, it is not up to me to tell the government what it should do regarding residence permits or not. What I am simply emphasizing is exactly what you are saying: that is to say that we are on a private media which, today, relays Kremlin propaganda through this lady. And that, for me, is very shocking. And that’s in addition to other things. This is in addition to what happened during the Cannes Film Festival, when Canal + explained that it was going to boycott or sideline petitioners. Well, it’s still very radical. This is in addition to what happened at Grasset, where Olivier Nora was expelled militarily and where 170 authors said they were going to leave. Somewhere there, there is a cultural war, an intellectual war that is being waged. And, in any case, we cannot be indifferent to it. This episode adds to the others.
Nathalie Saint-Cricq: Did you watch the PSG-Arsenal match? All the violence that may have occurred afterwards, which was not necessarily the work of supporters but probably of thugs, rekindles the debate on too lax justice, too lax a State. Do you consider that it’s something that we have to live with and that basically, even if it’s not entirely specific to France but we have, let’s say, a good little tradition with PSG, we have to say to ourselves: we will put the police in, then we will suffer this regularly when there is a match? Or should we take matters into our own hands?
Look, again, this is not my job today, this is not my expertise. I am not a coach, I am not Minister of the Interior either, and I trust the police forces of my country. Simply, what we must see is that we must avoid, I believe, generalization. When Éric Zemmour, behind this, takes the opportunity to bring out his thesis on remigration, it seems to me completely outdated. There are problems that are related to breakers. And we see that. I walked afterwards, near my home, where there were demonstrations in the street. I saw people who were wearing helmets, who were preparing to commit acts, or at least who were available to do so. That was clear. And then there is also this question: why is this youth like this, spread out in this way? We should not equate all young people with thugs, far from it.
Click on the video to watch the full interview
