The European Parliament’s Security and Defence Committee (SEDE) abruptly cancelled a planned visit to Ukraine following objections to the participation of German MEP Hans Neuhoff, a member of the far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN) group. The trip, intended for Monday and previously shrouded in secrecy for security reasons, has ignited a political storm and raised questions about the scrutiny applied to parliamentary delegations to the conflict zone.
According to reports, Ukrainian authorities reportedly communicated to Parliament President Roberta Metsola their intention to deny Neuhoff entry. The rationale provided allegedly cited “political connections” to the Russian Federation and an alleged unauthorized presence in Russian-occupied territories of the Donbas region. Following this notification, SEDE chair Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann recommended postponing the mission, citing the perception of Neuhoff as a security risk. The postponement was confirmed Sunday.
Strack-Zimmermann voiced her concurrence with the Ukrainian assessment, stating she was unwilling to undertake a journey where “meaningful conversations” could not be held. She characterized the Ukrainian perspective as viewing Neuhoff as a “security risk.
Neuhoff, in a letter to President Metsola, vehemently denied the accusations, describing them as “entirely unfounded” and criticizing the lack of written confirmation regarding the alleged concerns from either Ukrainian authorities or Metsola’s office. He explicitly stated that he maintains no political relations with the Russian Federation.
The Ukrainian Embassy in Germany responded to inquiries with a statement acknowledging Neuhoff’s “pro-Russian positions” referencing his public statements regarding the conflict, including calls for capitulation and attempts to downplay Russian war crimes. While refusing to comment directly on the travel ban itself, the embassy’s statement clearly signals the underlying rationale behind the decision.
The cancellation and subsequent justification highlight a growing sensitivity surrounding engagement with Ukraine and a heightened level of scrutiny applied to individuals perceived as sympathetic to Russian narratives. The incident raises questions about the parliamentary process surrounding delegations to conflict zones and the potential for political considerations to impact legitimate oversight activities. Critics suggest the decision, while understandable from a security perspective, risks further polarizing the debate surrounding the conflict and reinforcing narratives of obstruction. The denial also echoes broader concerns about the increasing restrictions on free expression and the challenges faced by those seeking to offer alternative perspectives on the war.