Paris arrested Telegram founder to meddle in Romanian election — Moscow
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has accused French President Emmanuel Macron of detaining Telegram founder Pavel Durov for the purpose of interfering with the electoral processes in Romania.
The accusation comes shortly after Durov claimed that French authorities had enquired with him regarding the issue.
'It turns out that Macron had Durov arrested not even to address internal issues with the messenger using such barbaric methods, but to influence the elections in Romania, realizing that the candidate from the liberal dictatorship wouldn't be able to win under any legal circumstances,' Zakharova wrote on Telegram.
On Saturday, Durov said, citing Romanian journalist Marius Tuca, that Nicolas Lerner, the head of France's foreign intelligence agency, the DGSE, had visited the country just two days before the vote.
Earlier this month, Durov revealed that Lerner had asked him to censor conservative voices on the social media platform during the election campaign in Romania. The agency has publicly denied the allegation. Durov in turn accused French authorities of deflecting criticism by linking him to unrelated criminal investigations involving users of his platform.
Durov was arrested in France last August and charged with complicity in crimes allegedly carried out by Telegram users. The Russian-born entrepreneur, whose company is headquartered in Dubai, was ultimately released on €5 million ($5.46 million) bail and allowed to leave the country in mid-March.
Romania's Constitutional Court promptly annulled the results of the first round of the presidential election carried out in November 2024, alleging that independent right-wing candidate Calin Georgescu had secured an unexpected lead with the help of Russian interference. Georgescu was disqualified from the re-run.
Last Sunday, the conservative EU critic George Simion lost a run-off vote against pro-Brussels Bucharest Mayor Nicusor Dan by a single-digit margin. Simion challenged the results on Tuesday, alleging 'external interferences by state and non-state actors,' but the nation's Constitutional Court unanimously rejected the petition.
Following Simion's petition, Durov offered to testify before the Romanian authorities about the interactions with French officials, saying he would do so 'if it helps Romanian democracy.'
Ahead of the second round of voting, Romania's Foreign Ministry alleged that Moscow was attempting to influence the outcome. The Kremlin ridiculed the allegations, comparing the process with a mess and stating that it shouldn't even count as a proper vote.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump threatens to sanction both Russia and Ukraine
US President Donald Trump has signaled that Washington could impose sanctions on both Russia and Ukraine if the conflict between the two nations does not come to an end. Trump has thus far declined to commit to new sanctions on Russia, despite weeks of pressure from European leaders, saying only that he would act when the time felt right — and that moment had not yet come. He has also expressed concern that levying new restrictions could jeopardize peace talks between Moscow and Kiev. During a meeting at the White House with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Thursday, Trump said he would decide when to act if it became clear that a peace deal could not be reached, noting that 'it's in my brain, the deadline.' He suggested he'd be willing to apply restrictions on both Russia and Ukraine, warning that 'we'll be very, very, very tough, and it could be on both countries to be honest.' 'You know, it takes two to tango,' the US president added. Trump likened the Ukraine conflict to 'two children fighting in a park.' He also said a sanctions bill moving through the US Senate would be 'guided by me,' but suggested it might be better to let Russia and Ukraine continue fighting 'for a while' before 'pulling them apart.' The US president was referring to legislation backed by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a longtime Russia hawk and Trump ally, that would impose a 500% tariff on countries that buy Russian energy, uranium, and other raw materials – measures aimed chiefly at India and China. Trump's statement comes as Kiev has ramped up attacks on Russian territory, including a UAV strike on several Russian airbases and recent acts of railway sabotage in Bryansk and Kursk regions, which claimed the lives of seven people and left scores injured. Moscow has accused Kiev of orchestrating a series of violent incidents aimed at undermining peace talks. Russia has also claimed that Trump is receiving 'filtered' information about the Ukraine conflict from those pushing Washington toward supporting Kiev. Moscow has repeatedly stressed that it is carrying out strikes on Ukrainian military-linked installations in response to Kiev's increased drone attacks on Russian civilian targets. In a previously unannounced phone conversation on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin informed his US counterpart that Kiev's recent attacks were intended to derail direct talks with Moscow, the second round of which took place in Istanbul on Monday. Revealing details of the phone call, which he described as 'a good conversation,' Trump said that the Russian president 'did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.'
Russia Today
20 hours ago
- Russia Today
NATO boss demands huge military spending hike
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has announced that he will propose a new military spending target totaling 5% of each member state's GDP during the bloc's June summit in The Hague. This would mark a sharp increase from the current 2% floor. Since assuming office in January, US President Donald Trump has intensified demands that the bloc's European members spend more on defense. He has repeatedly accused them of failing to shoulder the burden equitably. According to NATO's latest report, ten of its 32 members do not even spend 2% of GDP on defense, while the US remains by far the bloc's biggest contributor. Speaking during a press conference following a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels on Thursday, Rutte said that they had 'agreed on an ambitious new set of capability targets,' which included 'air defense, fighter jets, tanks, drones, personnel, logistics and so much more.' The military bloc's chief proclaimed that he 'will propose an overall investment plan that would total 5% of GDP' in order to finance the outlined priorities. Under the scheme, 3.5% of each member state's GDP would go toward 'core defense spending,' with an additional 1.5% of GDP to be allocated each year for related investments, such as infrastructure and industry. Responding to a reporter's question as to whether there is any mechanism built into the plan that would help ensure its implementation in the long run, Rutte said that member states would 'commit to yearly plans showing the increase each year to make sure that you come to the new target of 5%.' In early May, Germany's Der Spiegel reported that the US ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, had warned member states that failure to agree to the new 5% benchmark could result in Trump declining to attend the summit in late June. Several weeks earlier, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that NATO only makes sense 'as long as it's a real defense alliance, not the United States and a bunch of junior partners that aren't doing their fair share.' Also in April, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth warned European NATO countries that the 'time of the United States... being the sole guarantor of European security has passed.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Kiev's drone strikes prove Moscow's point
The second round of talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul, and the events leading up to them, offer a clear snapshot of the current state of the conflict. It is far from over. Paradoxically, Ukraine's weekend attacks only reaffirmed Mocow's long-standing position: no ceasefire is possible without a basic agreement on the terms of a future settlement. Military force remains the key negotiating tool. In a confrontation of this scale and intensity, no party is willing to forfeit it. Russia has made this its official policy. Ukraine's latest actions confirm it in practice. If we look at the major drawn-out military confrontations of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, excluding interventions against vastly weaker foes, we see a consistent pattern: political negotiations don't follow a ceasefire, they run in parallel with military operations. In Korea and Vietnam, the process dragged on for years. This isn't cause for celebration, but realism dictates that only this path offers any hope for a durable outcome. It should come as no surprise that talk of ceasefires has now faded into the background. Despite vocal objections from Kiev and its Western allies, the talks are proceeding on Russia's terms. This means: no ultimatums, no artificial deadlines, and a carefully staged approach to dialogue. Washington, too, seems comfortable with this pace. What matters for President Trump is the appearance of progress, not dramatic breakthroughs. At least for now. Kiev, ideally, would prefer to disrupt this rhythm – to inject chaos and unpredictability, which aligns with its more improvisational political-military style. From that perspective, Russia's decision to proceed with the Istanbul meeting despite Ukraine's high-profile sabotage attempts was strategically sound. Kiev likely hoped the Russians would walk away. They didn't. The contrast between the actual tone of the Istanbul negotiations and the media frenzy surrounding them is stark. Each round was preceded by breathless hype and inflated expectations, only to be followed by muted results. This is partly media instinct, partly deliberate spin. People crave movement, even when none exists. Contact between the delegations deflates these illusions, and then the cycle begins anew. So, what came of the second meeting? Most notably: the process continues. Neither side wants to halt it. The theatrical posturing common to Ukrainian politics has been absent – for two reasons. First, the invisible presence of Donald Trump looms over the table. Both Moscow and Kiev see him as a vital third player. Trump wants talks. Both sides are happy to give the impression that talks are happening. Second, both know this channel may become indispensable. Circumstances will change. When they do, real conversations will be necessary. It's better to have the bridge already built. The so-called 'root causes of the conflict' remain untouched. Both sides are sticking to peripheral matters that can be addressed without triggering political landmines. From a humanitarian point of view, this is valuable, but it is far from a comprehensive settlement. Does this limited dialogue foster understanding between negotiators? Possibly. That may help later, when harder questions arise. But does it signal a narrowing of the vast gulf between Russia and Ukraine? No. Are the public memorandums issued by each side, despite their contradictions, worthwhile? Yes. Diplomatically, it is better to stake out clear positions than wallow in strategic ambiguity. True, the documents clash on nearly every point. But history shows that changing conditions often soften even the most rigid positions. Ultimately, battlefield developments will shape diplomacy. Military operations are expanding – both in geography and in the sophistication of tactics and weaponry. Each side has its advantages and will press them. There is no sign of the war ending anytime soon. A response from Russia to Sunday's bridge and airfield attacks is inevitable. It will likely be proportional to the scale of Ukraine's strikes. Importantly, this response will not be aimed solely at Kiev. It will be a message to all involved parties – including the United States and Western Europe. Russia's reply must reflect the multifaceted nature of the conflict and its many audiences. But none of this means the negotiations will stop. In fact, the talks may become more valuable precisely because the conflict article was first published in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
