Ex-Russian MP accused of selling information to US for $45 mn
In a statement on Wednesday cited by several Russian media outlets, the office said that Magomed Gadzhiev, who fled Russia in 2023 after the start of the Ukraine conflict, 'expressed readiness to cooperate with Western intelligence services in exchange for foreign citizenship' of an unspecified country.
It noted that the ex-MP received 'at least $45 million' from unnamed American government agencies, adding that this was allegedly revealed by the US Department of Government Efficiency, formerly led by Elon Musk. The prosecutors, however, did not specify what information Gadzhiev had passed to the West.
A court in the southern Russian region of Dagestan is seeking to designate Gadzhiev and members of his family 'extremists' and nationalize his business enterprises and confiscate assets. Russian authorities have also accused him of publicly supporting Kiev and 'discrediting' Russia's armed forces, saying he declared abroad that he was ready to assist Ukraine's backers.
Details of the case have not been disclosed, including any potential penalties if the suspects are detained in Russia.
In May 2023, the Justice Ministry designated Gadzhiev – who has also been expelled from the ruling United Russia party – a foreign agent, and a year later, he was put on a wanted list. Sergey Melikov, the head of Dagestan, called him a 'coward and a traitor,' adding that the ex-MP was ready to 'throw mud' at what was 'dear' to his compatriots in exchange for an EU passport.
Gadzhiev served in Russia's tax authorities in senior roles before entering parliament and was a State Duma deputy from 2003 to 2021. Several Western media outlets claimed that despite his exile, the ex-MP 'has managed to continue his luxurious lifestyle, with properties in both France and Miami.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
38 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky could have to sacrifice land for peace – ex-US congressman
US President Donald Trump's recent remarks may be read as a signal that Ukraine could face territorial concessions in peace talks with Russia, former Congressman Michael Patrick Flanagan told RT on Tuesday. Trump met Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky, alongside several European leaders and officials in Washington on Monday, with the discussions centering on conditions for a possible peace deal with Russia. The talks followed Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska last week. The US president has urged Zelensky 'to show some flexibility' in peace talks, a move widely seen as a hint that Kiev could be expected to make territorial concessions. Flanagan said Trump was likely talking about Crimea and the new Russian territories still under Ukrainian control. The Lugansk (LPR) and Donetsk (DPR) People's Republics, collectively known as Donbass, as well as Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, became part of Russia following referendums held in 2022. While the LPR was fully liberated by the Russian military earlier this year, Moscow's control over other former Ukrainian regions remains partial. Kiev has maintained its claim to the four territories, as well as to Crimea, which voted to join Russia shortly after a 2014 Western-backed armed coup in Kiev. Flanagan pointed to the long-standing dispute over Crimea, arguing that the peninsula's reunification with Russia was a turning point that fueled tensions. He insisted that Crimea's ties to Russia cannot be ignored. 'Historically, the Crimea is Russian. I mean, it just is,' Flanagan argued, recalling that the territory was transferred to Ukraine only under Soviet rule. 'This is not a Ukrainian prize, but one that was bestowed on it' during the time of the Soviet Union, he added. On Donbass, Flanagan made a similar case, saying that Moscow has 'a legitimate claim to these places.' The US president has repeatedly floated the idea of 'land swaps' and has also firmly stated that Kiev will not get Crimea back. Zelensky had previously refused outright to discuss territorial concessions, but acknowledged that land swaps were on the agenda of the latest talks at the White House. Flanagan said Trump is driven by a sense of humanity, claiming, 'This is a guy genuinely concerned with deaths everywhere, not just American deaths.'
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
US changes stance on 2008 Russia-Georgia war
The US has not endorsed a condemnation of Russia for its 2008 war with Georgia for the first time. Following a closed-door session of the UN Security Council on Monday, Denmark, France, Greece, the UK, and Slovenia issued a statement denouncing Russia for the 'brutal invasion' of the South Caucasus country 17 years ago. The US did not sign the statement, despite having done so in the past. On August 7, 2008, under orders from staunchly pro-Western President Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian army invaded the breakaway region of South Ossetia, shelled its capital Tskhinval, and attacked a base of Russian peacekeepers. Russian forces pushed the Georgian troops back, and a French-mediated ceasefire was reached on August 16. That same month, Russia recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another of Georgia's former regions. Although Saakashvili insisted that Russia had attacked first, an EU fact-finding mission led by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini found no evidence to support his claim, confirming that 'open hostilities began with a large-scale Georgian military operation' against Tskhinval, starting 'with a massive Georgian artillery attack.' Tina Bokuchava, head of Saakashvili's United National Movement, criticized Washington's refusal to condemn Russia, calling it 'proof that Georgian diplomacy is dead.' She blamed the ruling Georgian Dream party for souring relations with the US. US President Donald Trump has broken the previous administration's diplomatic boycott of Russia and sought to mediate an end to the Ukraine conflict. He met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska for the first time since 2019 as part of his effort to streamline negotiations.
Russia Today
6 hours ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Western Europe is at Trump's mercy
From a theatrical point of view, Monday's Washington summit between US President Donald Trump and Western Europe's leaders was a vivid spectacle. Each official played their role, some with greater skill than others. But behind the carefully staged performance, the real story emerged: the region's inability to act as a political entity in its own right. Contrary to media spin, the meeting was not about Ukraine. Attempts to resolve the crisis continue, but its outcome will ultimately be decided not in Brussels or Berlin, but by non-European powers. The real lesson from Washington lay in the display of Western Europe's dependence. Every move by these Western European leaders was aimed at one goal: not angering the American president. In the words of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump has become 'Daddy' – a figure to be placated with smiles, tributes, and flattery. Leaders compared notes on how best to manage his moods, even down to reportedly advising Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky on what to wear, what to say, and how to thank him. This might sound absurd. But that is the political reality of the transatlantic relationship. The EU no longer acts with autonomy. Its politics revolve around managing the temper of a man in Washington. Of course, Trump's personality is unique, but it would be a mistake to reduce the issue to character. The essence is deeper: Western Europe has suddenly realized the scale of its strategic, political and economic dependence on the United States. Put bluntly, the half-continent can do very little without America – even in matters that directly touch its own interests. This dependency did not appear overnight. Ironically, it deepened under Joe Biden. With his rhetoric of 'unprecedented transatlantic solidarity,' the former president made Western Europe carry much of the political and economic burden of the conflict with Russia. The United States reaped the economic benefits, while the costs were shifted to the Old World. Trump has simply made this arrangement overt. He openly treats the Europeans not as partners, but as tools. In his eyes, the EU exists to finance American priorities and later to handle the technical details of a post-settlement Ukraine. Western Europe's 'position' counts for little if it differs from Washington's. The recent trade talks proved the point: negotiations went America's way, and his guests accepted it. Faced with this reality, Western Europe has chosen a strategy of unrestrained flattery. Leaders believe that by praising Trump, they can slip their own disagreements into the conversation. But the approach is self-defeating. Trump regards praise not as persuasion but as recognition of self-evident truth: if you admire me, I must be right. Join me, and keep applauding. Brussels reassures itself that this humiliation is temporary, the product of one unusual leader. When Trump leaves, normality will return. But the illusion will not last. For over two decades – since the presidency of George W. Bush – Washington has been steadily shifting its strategic focus away from Europe. This course has been consistent across parties and presidents. It will not change after Trump. And given the current willingness of EU leaders to grovel, future US presidents will expect no less. Some argue that Western Europe's position is no different from that of nation states dealing with America. That is misleading. Canada, for example, has taken a firm stance under its new prime minister, and Trump has eased his attacks. Outside the Atlantic bloc, the contrast is sharper still. China, India, Brazil and South Africa have all resisted US pressure. They may compromise, but they refuse to submit. None wants a direct confrontation with America, but none accepts blackmail. Only the EU consistently folds. It has become the undisputed champion of compliance, treating subservience as prudence. History shows Western Europe has not always been so timid. In the early 1980s, when Soviet-American dialogue collapsed, its leaders persuaded Ronald Reagan not to interfere with their energy projects with the USSR. Why? Because it suited the EU's own interests. That clarity of purpose is absent today. The problem is not that Brussels simply follows America, but that Western Europe no longer knows what its own interests are. Having lost the ability – or perhaps the courage – to define them, it automatically falls in line with Washington. For the United States, this is convenient. The EU is treated as a competitor in some spheres and a resource in others, but never as a genuine partner. What does this mean for Russia? For now, little. The relationship is at a low ebb, and rebuilding it is a question for the distant future. Still, the lesson of history is clear: the most productive periods in Russian-EU relations came when Western Europe acted in its own interests, not as America's appendage. Today, that capacity has vanished. Instead, the bloc risks descending into what can only be described as a collective political neurosis. Leaders reassure themselves with illusions, while the gap between Western Europe's ambitions and its actual autonomy grows wider. The consequences could be dangerous – for the EU itself, for its neighbors, and for the stability of the wider international article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.
