Banned ex-Romanian presidential front-runner quits politics
Georgescu, a former UN official, ran as an independent in Romania's November 2024 presidential election, campaigning on national sovereignty, criticism of Bucharest's involvement in NATO and the EU, and opposition to continued military aid for Ukraine. Having won the initial round of voting, his victory was annulled by the country's Constitutional Court, citing 'irregularities' in his campaign along with intelligence reports alleging Russian interference—claims Moscow has denied.
The election was rerun on May 18 without Georgescu on the ballot.
In a video address published on Monday, Georgescu stated that he has chosen to become a 'passive observer of public and social life' and to end his 'active involvement in the political process, considering that this stage of the sovereignist movement has ended from my point of view.'
He also stated that he would not join or lead any political party or attempt to hold 'any position in the Romanian state in the current situation.' Instead, Georgescu said he will focus his attention and energy on his family.
Georgescu left open the possibility of returning to public life, if he sees that 'the rights of those who have chosen differently are being violated or injustices and abuses arise.'
Romania's electoral authorities banned Georgescu from taking part in this month's rerun - a decision that was also upheld by the Constitutional Court, citing alleged violations of campaign finance rules and national security concerns.
He was replaced on the ballot by Euroskeptic candidate George Simion - the leader of the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) party. Simion lost in the second round of voting to Bucharest Mayor and EU supporter Nicusor Dan. The right-wing candidate has since refused to recognize the results, citing a 'coordinated international interference' campaign.
Moscow has described Romania's latest election as 'strange, at the very least,' noting that Dan did not secure victory until Georgescu - the frontrunner - was disqualified.
Telegram founder Pavel Durov also claimed last week that Nicolas Lerner, the head of French foreign intelligence, personally urged him to censor conservative voices on the platform ahead of the Romanian election.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
EU creating ‘liberal dictatorship' in ex-Soviet country
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has denounced the Moldovan authorities' efforts to imprison the leader of the autonomous region of Gagauzia, Yevgenia Gutsul, calling it an example of 'European anti-values in action.' Gutsul, who was elected as Gagauzia's governor in July 2023, was detained on March 25 while attempting to leave Moldova. Authorities have accused her of illegally financing the banned Euroskeptic SOR party. She has denied the charges and called the case politically motivated. The Moldovan Prosecutor's Office requested a nine-year prison term for on Tuesday. In addition, authorities have called for a five-year ban on Gutsul holding public office. 'The European anti-values are in action. From a hardworking country, Brussels is forging a liberal dictatorship,' Zakharova wrote on her Telegram channel. Gutsul's arrest has triggered protests outside the courthouse in Chisinau, with supporters calling the proceedings a politically driven attempt to neutralize opposition in the region. In October 2024, the EU also sanctioned Gutsul for 'promoting separatism,' maintaining 'close ties with Russia,' and allegedly threatening Moldova's sovereignty. President Maia Sandu's government, in power since 2020, has pursued rapid integration with the European Union and NATO. Opposition figures, including former President Igor Dodon and members of the Victorie party, have accused the government of repressing dissent and abandoning Moldova's traditional ties with Russia. Gutsul has appealed to foreign leaders including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan to intervene. In a March letter, she urged Putin to exert pressure on Moldovan authorities for her release. Russian officials and opposition groups in Moldova have warned that the central government is increasingly using law enforcement to suppress political rivals and religious institutions. In recent months, clashes between police and Orthodox Christian demonstrators at protests have drawn additional criticism from pro-traditionalist factions. Gagauzia, a largely Russian-speaking autonomous region in southern Moldova, has historically favored closer ties with Russia and has opposed Moldova's integration with the European Union. In a 2014 referendum, more than 98% of voters in the region supported joining the Russia-led Customs Union.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ukraine isn't Israel. And that's exactly the problem
US President Donald Trump secured his image as a 'peacemaker' by swiftly de-escalating tensions in the Israel-Iran conflict. However, the methods he employed have little to do with the system of international law that the West swears by when condemning Russia's own military operation. So, why has the situation in the Middle East become calmer while the Ukraine crisis rages on? Perhaps the answer lies in a comment Trump made during a NATO summit, when he said that 'something needs to be done' about Ukraine because the situation is 'completely out of control'. Out of US control, to be precise. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proved to be a more predictable partner for Trump. Unlike Ukraine, Israel cannot depend on consistent support from Europe; for the past several years, Europe has assessed the actions of the Israeli military with increasing restraint and sometimes outright criticism. Tel Aviv didn't have another external 'guardian', and this significantly strengthened Washington's position. The loss of US support would have jeopardized Israel's entire security architecture, and a conflict with the White House was a risk Netanyahu couldn't afford to take. The asymmetrical goals of the parties also played an important part. Israel declared that it wanted to eradicate the Iranian regime – an ambitious yet unrealistic goal. In contrast, Iran didn't seek to escalate the conflict; it aimed to maintain internal stability and minimize losses – a goal Tehran successfully achieved, but one that Israel may have failed at. Nevertheless, both sides managed to save face. Netanyahu announced the destruction of key facilities of Iran's nuclear program. Although leaks published in the American media have suggested that Tehran evacuated sensitive materials ahead of time, Iran officially acknowledged some of the damage. Whether this statement was made as a strategic move for de-escalation or as an acknowledgment of real losses is of secondary importance. The key point is that both Israel and Iran have chosen not to escalate the conflict further. It's likely that both sides calculated the risks involved. Israel did not anticipate such a strong retaliatory response and realized it could not destabilize the Islamic Republic on its own. Iran, for its part, was probably unprepared for a war that could draw in the US. Washington, meanwhile, had no desire to get embroiled in a full-blown Middle Eastern campaign. Trump managed to propose a way out: de-escalation without a formal agreement, but with terms that allowed each party to claim victory. The Ukraine crisis isn't just a bilateral issue; it involves many players. Beyond the US, the European Union has become a key player. According to Member of the European Parliament Csaba Demeter, the EU contributes €134 billion of the total €267 billion in aid – about 10% of the EU's seven-year budget. It's understandable that Brussels is reluctant to abandon its pursuit of 'Russia's strategic defeat,' even if it doesn't explicitly state this. Many of the EU's diplomatic moves, like proposals for an unconditional ceasefire, demonstrate an effort to regroup rather than seek compromise. Unlike Trump, European elites still consider the Ukraine crisis manageable. While in the Middle East they were concerned about the destabilization of energy markets and thus favored de-escalation, in Ukraine the EU actively supports the continuation of the conflict. Just recall how German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has repeatedly stated that Ukraine must negotiate from a position of strength – a stance he uses to justify Berlin's willingness to supply Kiev with long-range weapons. French President Emmanuel Macron has echoed that line, consistently emphasizing his country's role in arming Ukraine's military. Trump has fewer tools at his disposal compared to the situation with Israel. Sure, he can say that this isn't his war; but if Ukraine loses, it will go down in his biography as 'the second Afghanistan.' That's why the US is hesitant to leverage its influence: a thorough audit of the billions of dollars in aid provided to Ukraine hasn't been initiated yet, despite corruption allegations growing louder in Kiev. Such an audit could significantly impact Zelensky's behavior and push him toward negotiations. The question of Zelensky's legitimacy also remains: Zelensky's presidential term expired in May 2024, a fact that Moscow has often noted. Currently, there are no signs that Trump is ready to instigate a political process, but perhaps his calls for 'doing something' also pertain to this aspect. Unlike the conflict that has flared up in the Middle East, the Ukraine conflict is not just a temporary crisis; it poses a long-term challenge to the framework of European security. The Israeli-Iranian standoff hasn't changed the balance of power in the region, but the Ukrainian conflict has reshaped Eastern Europe in the political, military, and psychological sense. Neither side is willing to return to how things were before. The process of constructing a new security system on the European continent that accommodates the interests of all parties involved is a fundamental task; a simple ceasefire won't solve these issues. Russia has made it clear that it will not settle for a temporary ceasefire that merely looks like peace. Long-term guarantees are needed to prevent the conflict from recurring, which means Kiev must reassess both its foreign and domestic strategies. For now, neither the EU nor Washington has demonstrated any real willingness to head in that direction. While he understands the complexity of the situation, Trump is cautious about getting involved in negotiations. He has expressed frustration with both sides, as if saying – I tried, but no one was interested. This approach has allowed the US to shift responsibility for the crisis onto Europe, implying: now it's your war – you go find a solution. Brussels recognizes this signal and is doing everything it can to keep Washington focused on Ukraine. But as time goes on, it becomes increasingly clear that Trump does not want to take on the role of chief mediator in this conflict. He has not provided any clear signals regarding a long-term strategy. His position remains chaotic and reactive, making it even harder to predict the future actions of the United States.
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Italy could classify $13.5 billion bridge as NATO spending
Italian authorities are looking to classify a long-term project to construct a bridge connecting the mainland to the island of Sicily as a NATO expenditure amid their struggle to meet the bloc's spending goals, according to Politico. The idea of creating an overpass to the largest island in the Mediterranean had been discussed in Italy for many decades, but its realization has been hampered by high costs, the difficulty of operating in a seismic zone and other issues. If built by the current government of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, the 3.6-km-long suspension bridge across the Strait of Messina will become the longest in the world. In its article on Monday, Politico described Italy as 'one of NATO's lowest military spenders,' with Rome investing only 1.49% of its GDP in defense last year, a far cry from the 5% goal approved at the bloc's summit in The Hague in June. Marking the $13.5 billion bridge as a NATO spending could help Meloni meet the bloc's 5% target and, at the same time, 'convince a war-wary public of the need for major defense outlays at a time when Italy is already inching toward austerity,' the article read. An unnamed Italian government official told the outlet that no formal decision has yet been made by Rome on classifying the bridge as a security project, but further talks would likely be held soon to 'see how feasible this feels.' According to another official from the Italian Treasury, who also talked to Politico, the new designation of the project would make raising money for it easier and would also 'override bureaucratic obstacles, litigation with local authorities that could challenge the government in court claiming that the bridge will disproportionately damage their land.' The problem for Rome is that the Strait of Messina lies outside of Italy's only designated NATO military mobility corridor, the article pointed out. However, the Italian case is backed by the fact that only 3.5% from the NATO spending target must be allocated for core military needs, while the remaining 1.5% could be steered toward broader strategic resilience projects, including infrastructure. 'Whether NATO — and more importantly, US President Donald Trump, who loves a big building project — will buy into that logic is another matter,' Politico noted.
