Court extends Moldovan governor's arrest
The official was first detained on Tuesday at Chisinau International Airport, with the Moldovan authorities saying she was on a wanted list. On Friday, prosecutors said the governor stood accused of complicity in illegal campaign financing in the 2023 election. The politician won the governor's post in Gagauzia that year.
She was also charged with falsifying documents. Law enforcement officials did not provide any further details about the charges, citing a pending investigation.
Gutsul herself maintains her innocence. Her lawyers have denounced the court decision as
'absurd'
and vowed to appeal.
'When there are no legal arguments [in favor of such a court decision], there are other arguments. I believe they are political in this case,'
one of the politician's lawyers, Sergiu Moraru, told journalists after the hearing.
Read more
Kremlin responds to arrested Moldovan governor's appeal to Putin
The governor herself labeled the investigation a
'political case'
linked to her role as Gagauzia's leader. She has accused Chisinau of pursuing a plan to dismantle the region's autonomy through lawfare targeting her administration.
The Gagauz are a Turkic-speaking, predominantly Orthodox Christian ethnic group living in southern Moldova. Their region has been granted broad rights to self-government.
On Thursday, Gutsul appealed to both Russia and Türkiye to apply pressure on Moldovan President Maia Sandu's administration in defense of Gagauzia's rights. The Kremlin responded that it had
'reviewed'
Gutsul's request. Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the actions of the Moldovan authorities are at odds with the democratic principles proclaimed by the West.
Chisinau claims that Gutsul is part of a Russian influence operation aimed at disrupting the country's attempts to become a member of the EU. Moscow has accused Moldova of cracking down on politicians and journalists who advocate closer ties with Russia.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
7 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ukraine kills civilians trying to cross into Russia
Ukrainian troops have over the course of the conflict killed hundreds of civilians attempting to cross the frontline into Russia, senior diplomat Rodion Miroshnik has told the media. Miroshnik, who serves as the Russian Foreign Ministry's ambassador-at-large for the Kiev regime's war crimes, said the cases were documented through testimony and video evidence. 'There are hundreds of cases. There are instances where people were shot while trying to cross the [front] line, bombarded with drones, attacked,' the diplomat told the TASS news agency on Friday. Miroshnik went on to claim that Kiev's forces deliberately murder civilians in the new Russian region of Donetsk. 'There were cases where Ukrainian forces went through the basements of houses and threw grenades at people 'as a preventive measure,' he said. Such tactics, seen in the towns of Avdeevka, Selidovo, and Dzerzhinsk in the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) left areas 'completely cleared' of civilians, he added. The same happened in Chasov Yar, a key Ukrainian stronghold liberated by Russian forces two weeks to the diplomat, evidence suggests that Kiev's forces kill those whom Ukraine no longer sees as its own citizens, but rather as 'separatists' waiting to be liberated by Russia. In June, the Russian Foreign Ministry accused Kiev of deliberately exterminating civilians in Donbass, including mass killings of the elderly and drone strikes on residential buildings. Russia will not overlook any crimes committed against the civilian population in violation of international humanitarian law, Miroshnik stressed. The diplomat argued that under international conventions Ukraine is obligated to investigate alleged war crimes and hold perpetrators accountable but claimed that Kiev is unlikely to do so and that its Western backers will not apply pressure. Miroshnik added that Russia will push for the extradition of Ukrainian war criminals, noting that around 108,000 criminal cases have already been opened and roughly 500 individuals have been convicted, including some in absentia.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
US has ‘no right' to tell India who to trade with
The United States has no right to tell India who it can partner with in trade, Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, said on Friday. The economist was commenting in an interview with NDTV television on Washington's decision to impose additional tariffs on India over its purchases of Russian oil. Last week, the White House announced an extra 25% tariff on Indian imports, raising the overall tariff level faced by the South Asian nation to 50%. US President Donald Trump said the measure was prompted by India's continued imports of Russian oil. New Delhi condemned the move as 'extremely unfortunate' and pledged to safeguard its national interests. Sachs described the tariff increase as a clear reason for India to remain cautious in its dealings with Washington. 'Don't rely on them. India needs a diversified base of partners – Russia, China, ASEAN countries, Africa, and not see itself as mainly focusing on the US market, which is going to be unstable, slow-growing and basically protectionist,' according to Sachs. Addressing India's imports of Russian oil, Sachs stated that Washington has no authority to determine the trading relations of other nations. The US 'does not act responsibly towards other countries. Be careful. India should not allow itself to be used by the US, somehow, in the US' misguided trade war with China,' the economist noted. New Delhi is now seeking to expand its export presence in the 50 countries that account for about 90% of its total exports in an effort to offset the impact of the higher tariffs, according to local media reports, citing government sources. The initiative is intended to reduce reliance on any single market and to minimize risks arising from trade disruptions. In response to the US threats to impose secondary sanctions on Russia's trade partners, including India, China, and Brazil, Moscow stated that it believes 'sovereign states should have, and do have, the right to choose their own trade partners,' as well as to independently determine which avenues of cooperation best serve their national interests.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Putin-Trump meeting seeks to settle unfinished Cold War business
It has been a long time since a diplomatic event drew as much global attention as Friday's meeting between the Russian and US presidents in Alaska. In terms of its significance for the international balance, it is comparable only to the negotiations on German reunification 35 years ago. That process laid the foundations for political developments in the decades that followed. The Alaska talks could prove a similar milestone – not just for the Ukraine conflict, but for the principles on which a broader settlement between the world's leading powers might be reached. Ukraine has become the most visible arena for historical shifts that go far beyond its borders. But if the German analogy holds, no one should expect a breakthrough from a single meeting. The marathon of high-level diplomacy in 1990 lasted many months, and the mood then was far less acute and far more optimistic than today. The dense fog of leaks and speculation surrounding Alaska underlines its importance. Much of this 'white noise' comes from two sources: commentators eager to sound informed, and political actors seeking to shape public opinion. In reality, the substantive preparation for the talks appears to have little to do with the propaganda framing. This is why official announcements so often catch outside observers by surprise. That may be a good sign. In recent decades, especially in Europe, diplomacy has often been accompanied by a steady drip of confidential details to the press – a habit that may serve tactical purposes but rarely produces lasting results. In this case, it is better to wait for the outcome, or the lack of one, without giving in to the temptation to guess what will happen behind closed doors. There is also a broader backdrop that cannot be ignored: the shifts in the global order catalyzed by the Ukraine crisis, though not caused by it. For years, I have been skeptical of claims that the world is dividing neatly into two opposing camps – 'the West' versus 'the rest.' Economic interdependence remains too deep for even sharp political and military conflicts to sever ties entirely. Yet contradictions between these blocs are growing, and they are increasingly material rather than ideological. A key trigger was US President Donald Trump's recent attempt to pressure the largest states of the so-called 'global majority' – China, India, Brazil, and South Africa – to fall in line with Washington's instructions. The old liberal order promised universality and some benefits to participants. Now, purely American mercantile interests dominate. As before, Washington dresses its demands in political justifications – criticizing Brazil and South Africa over their treatment of the opposition, or attacking India and China over their ties with Moscow. But the inconsistencies are obvious. Trump, unlike his predecessors, prefers tariffs to sanctions. Tariffs are an explicitly economic tool, but they are now being wielded for political ends. The attempt has failed to produce the outcome the White House wanted. The US president is used to allies compromising to preserve their relationship with Washington. BRICS countries, too, have often avoided confrontation for the sake of their own economic interests. But the bluntness of the American push this time forced them to stiffen their positions. Ukraine, in itself, has little to do with this shift – but it is the issue commanding global political attention. Ahead of the Alaska summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been personally briefing BRICS and other key partners on the preparations. They are taking note, and in many cases expressing support for the process. Across the Atlantic, consultations are equally intense, though marked by unease and limited trust. Western Europe's anxiety that Trump might 'cut a deal' with Putin is telling. The world is still dividing into groups, but while one group is moving towards greater coordination, the other is growing less cohesive. Even if Alaska produces serious discussions, there is no guarantee it will deliver peace. It may not even be the final meeting. What is troubling is that the public debate remains focused on territorial carve-ups – who gets what, and what is given in exchange. This misses the core issue. The acute phase of the Ukraine crisis was not triggered by a hunger for territorial expansion. It began when Moscow challenged the security order that emerged after the Cold War – an order built on the open-ended enlargement of NATO as the supposed guarantor of European stability. This is where the German reunification analogy returns. That plan, while it resolved a territorial question, also enshrined the political principles that shaped the post-Cold War system. Those same principles, and the imbalance they created between Moscow and Washington, lay at the root of the 2022 escalation. Borders and territories are only part of the picture. The real question is the basis for peaceful coexistence going forward. In 1990, a settlement between East and West created the architecture of European security. But the way the Cold War ended – and the failure to give Moscow an equal stake – planted the seeds of today's confrontation. In that sense, the Alaska meeting is an attempt to resolve unfinished business from the past. Without a final settlement of this historic imbalance, it will be impossible to create a stable new system of relations, not just between Russia and the West but globally. The frequency of Putin's meetings with BRICS leaders shows that Moscow understands this reality. Whether Washington does remains to be article was first published in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
