Natylie Baldwin's Blog, page 37

Should Ukraine Hold Elections? Arguments For and Against

These two articles were brought to my attention by Prof. Geoffrey Roberts:

A correspondent has pointed out to me that while there was no general election in Britain between 1935-1945, there were 200 parliamentary by-elections, including many during the war which featured candidates highly critical of the government. There was very lively political discussion in Britain throughout the war, not least at the height of the German Blitz. Pro-Fascist organisation were banned and their leaders interned but the British communist party remained legal and waged a massive anti-war campaign before the Soviet Union entered the conflict in June 1941 (though the party’s newspaper was temporarily prohibited). Members of leftist organisations that continued to resist war were imprisoned (including my late father-in-law), but for refusing to serve in the armed forces even in auxiliary capacities (which is what the Quakers and other pacifists did). – Prof. Geoffrey Roberts

Why shouldn’t Ukraine hold elections?

By Branko Marcetic, Responsible Statecraft, 2/24/25

For three years now, the U.S.-NATO policy of eschewing peace talks in Ukraine and pursuing a hypothetical and increasingly unlikely military victory has been predicated on defending democracy.

Ukraine, we were told, has a vibrant, flourishing democracy, and preserving its survival is worth any cost — including the tremendous loss of life, physical destruction, and economic devastation borne by the country as a result of this policy.

Yet now, Western media and commentators are in a state of panic at simply the idea that Ukraine might have to do what they’ve been saying is the entire mission of the war effort: act like a democracy.

A little background: Ukraine should have held a presidential election last year, but with the government having declared martial law shortly after the Russian invasion in February 2022, that election has been indefinitely delayed until it is lifted. That move has been controversial, including in Ukraine, where critics have complained that Zelensky — whose popularity has dropped significantly since the start of the war, and who has suspended opposition political parties, arrested, intimidated, and sanctioned potential rivals, consolidated media under his control, and generally centralized power — is using it to avoid being removed from office.

Peace negotiations have thrown a further wrinkle into this, as Fox News reported, one of the possible stages of a three-stage peace plan discussed in U.S.-Russia talks to end the war would be for Ukraine to hold elections after a ceasefire, and before the settlement is signed. It is still far from clear whether holding an election would actually be in the mix, however, as a U.S. source later walked it back, Russia’s foreign minister denied the report, and the idea hasn’t popped up in other reporting on the discussions.

In any case, one would think that, given the overwhelming concern for Ukrainian democracy among war hawks, an election in the near future would be enthusiastically welcomed. After all, it would not only give Ukraine the chance to demonstrate its democratic bona fides, but it would also prove wrong Trump’s claim that Zelensky is a “dictator,” undermine a key part of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s propaganda, and give the Ukrainian president a renewed popular mandate.

Instead, as a host of Western commentators and news outlets now charge, a democratic election in Ukraine is not only impossible, but would be dangerous, wrong, and even part of a sinister Kremlin plot.

British journalist and media personality Piers Morgan called the idea “ridiculous,” pointing to the UK’s suspension of elections during World War II. Popular Twitter commentator Aaron Rupar likewise declared it “beyond ludicrous” for Ukraine “to hold an election when the country is an active war zone and 20 percent of it is under foreign occupation.” CNN anchor Jim Sciutto suggested the Kremlin would rig any election and possibly try and assassinate Zelensky.

***

Wartime Elections as Democratic Backsliding

By Oleksandr Vodiannikov, Website, 9/27/23

Oleksandr Vodiannikov, PhD, LLM, is a member of Ukraine’s Law Reform Commission and previously served as a member of Ukraine’s Judicial Reform Council and of the Constitutional Commission.

The topic of the next elections to the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine unexpectedly surfaced in public discourse towards the end of spring this year. In May 2023, PACE President Tiny Kox called for free and fair elections, despite the ongoing war. In July 2023, the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, Ruslan Stefanchuk, cautiously noted that there is no constitutional ban on holding elections during martial law, suggesting that the issue can be open for discussion. In September 2023, when questioned on the matter at the annual Yalta European Strategy conference in Kyiv, the President of Ukraine did not rule out such a possibility, but highlighted several practicalities that made elections unfeasible. “It is not a question of democracy. It is a question of security,” he stressed.

According to various press reports (see e.g. here, here, and here) Ukraine’s Western allies are urging the Ukrainian Government to organize elections despite the hostilities, often citing Israel as an example.

Indeed, if it were not for the war, Ukraine would already be in the midst of  the election process, as the next parliamentary ballot was supposed to be held on the last Sunday of October this year. However, on February 24, 2022, the world changed. The constitutional order of Ukraine also changed with various extraordinary mechanisms designed for extraordinary situations put in motion. This raises a logical question: can the next parliamentary elections be held under these conditions?

Julia Kyrychenko and Olha Ivasiuk’s recent article on Verfassungsblog outlines major legal and practical obstacles to holding wartime elections in Ukraine. In their illuminating analysis, the authors make a strong case against wartime elections, a viewpoint largely shared by civil society.

My argument is a bit different. I will argue that (1) wartime parliamentary elections are expressis verbis inconsistent with the Ukrainian Constitution, and (2) wartime elections would undermine the legitimacy of democratic institutions and potentially lead to democratic backsliding.

Elections under extreme conditions: what does Ukraine’s Constitution say?

The prohibition of wartime elections is established in statutory law.  Article 19(1) of the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” prohibits the holding of elections for the President of Ukraine, as well as elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and local self-government, under martial law. The Electoral Code of Ukraine also provides for the suspension of any electoral process from the moment martial law is introduced (Article 20).

The constitutional text is no less straightforward: In the case of martial law or a state of emergency, Article 83(4) of the Constitution provides for the extension of the Parliament’s powers until the day of the first meeting of the first session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, elected after the termination of martial law or state of emergency. The wording of this provision leaves no room for ambiguity– Parliament shall be elected after martial law is lifted. Thus, there are grounds to argue that no parliamentary elections can be constitutionally held during martial law.

While the Constitution cannot be amended during martial law (Art. 157(2)), statutory law can. If the electoral legislation is amended to allow wartime elections, it would be a valid law of the land until the Constitutional Court of Ukraine declares it unconstitutional (presumption of constitutionality). Therefore I would not rule out such a scenario with legislative enactment if international pressure increases.  However, under extreme conditions of war, can free and fair elections be held and can the expression of will be free as required by Art. 71 of the Constitution?

Julia Kyrychenko and Olha Ivasiuk have already discussed the practical, security, and human rights implications of the wartime electoral process. In the realm of constitutional law, they supplement a key argument – wartime elections infringe the democratic principles of the Constitution (Article 1 “democratic state” and Article 71 “free elections”).

The Constitution of Ukraine establishes the principle of a democratic state (Art. 1), whereby all public authority emanates from the people. This principle extends beyond elections and directly influences the principle of free elections under Article 71. Elections provide  democratic legitimation, but only if they are free and fair. This means not only must the actual act of voting remain free of coercion and undue pressure, and the right to vote of eligible voters not be removed or impaired, but the entire electoral process be fair from start to finish. This is accomplished through numerous constitutional guarantees of freedom and equality as well as through institutional and procedural mechanisms.

The dilemma of wartime elections means the choice between two options: (1) holding elections that fall short of constitutional standards, or (2) suspending the electoral process until the end of the war. Here we need to look at another facet of the democratic state principle: democracy means self-determination of the people. Self-determination is based on the idea of free, rational, and informed choice. If democratic self-determination is to be meaningful, it necessitates certain pre-legal conditions, such as continuous free debate between opposing social forces, interests, and ideas.

War, crises, and other extreme conditions are periods of “moral panic” when the world and the course of things we know crumble. A society in such periods may be willing to agree to extraordinary measures, proposals or appeals that promise a swift return to normalcy. The constitutional order, democracy, rule of law, constitutional rights and freedoms become vulnerable because during such times there is an increased risk of irrational decisions. People may panic and support policies that are unreasonable and excessive, especially when the nation’s very existence is at stake.

Therefore, between the two options, suspending the electoral process should be favored. Even if martial law is suspended for the sake of elections and the election process is put into motion, it will be constitutionally suspicious and will likely be held in contradiction to the Constitution’s fundamental principles of a democratic state and free elections. Wartime cannot guarantee an environment where electoral process participants can freely and fully express their views and wills. It also cannot ensure that all citizens serving in the armed forces, seeking refuge abroad or surviving under foreign occupation can meaningfully participate in a competitive and vibrant political life. Therefore, the unfeasibility of wartime elections is as much a question of democracy as it is of security.

Elections during the war: legality versus legitimacy

The motives behind foreign allies urging Ukraine to hold elections despite the ongoing extreme conditions are clear: they aim to  prevent Ukraine’s democratic backsliding. However, the risk of carrying ballot boxes through the trenches is similar: elections under extreme conditions would with high probability “cement” the current power constellations for the next 5-year term and at the same time undermine the public legitimacy of democratic institutions elected during wartime, thus creating a conducive environment for democratic backsliding.

Predicting the outcomes of potential elections during the war is speculative. There is no compelling precedent or case where a democracy in war, with a fifth of its territory occupied by an enemy or affected by active hostilities, has managed to conduct free and fair elections. Common wisdom tells not to change leaders in times of war. Wartime conditions have an impact on electoral choices, more so on electoral campaign dynamics and the fairness of elections. Therefore, even if the incumbent party majority in the Parliament lacks widespread popular support and would probably lose elections in peacetime, wartime conditions could provide it with a good opportunity to either consolidate its parliamentary representation or maintain the current status quo for the upcoming parliamentary term.

However, what is troubling is that wartime elections could merely pay lip service to democratic development.

The Verhovna Rada of Ukraine is the only directly democratically legitimized representative body that ensures state power is based on the people’s recognition and approval. This legitimation derives from Ukrainian citizens exercising their right to vote in parliamentary elections which, in turn, should comply with constitutional principles. If such a right is weakened due to the objective exigencies of wartime, Parliament would suffer an unsurmountable legitimacy deficit with all ensuing consequences.

First, elections that are constitutionally questionable can  undermine the legitimacy of both the process and the elected Parliament. Tens of thousands of men and women on the frontline, as well as those surviving under occupation or seeking refuge abroad, would feel deceived and treated unfairly if they were not able to vote or stand for elections. This perceived injustice would create a new divide in Ukrainian society, posing a threat to post-war reconstruction.

Suspending martial law for the sake of elections would also not be well received by the Ukrainian society. Public resentment would affect the legitimacy of the  newly elected Parliament, especially if upon reinstatement of martial law war casualties would increase. Discontent with politicians could inevitably lead to frustration with democratic institutions.

Secondly, war distorts rational choice and exacerbates societal divisions. While wartime sociological polls show a strong unity and cohesion among the Ukrainian people, underlying divisions remain, now intensified by subjective experiences and personal histories of war. These emotional aftershocks of personal experience, drama or, I would say, collective posttraumatic syndrome could transform into various scenarios of deterioration of the general psychological climate with corresponding consequences for democratic development.

Transitioning back to peacetime democracy would not be easy. The societal trauma of war will require a delicate treatment, including implementing transitional justice, promoting social cohesion, and ensuring effective and responsible functioning of democratic institutions. But what is more important, if a legislature is elected during wartime, post-war Ukrainian society would be deprived of the opportunity to resolve the country’s problems through dialogue and free debate inherent in the election process on competing visions of the nation’s future.

The story of Sir Winston Churchill is illuminating in this context. Britain suspended elections during World War II. At the end of the war, Churchill’s support in British society reached 83%. However, his party lost the post-war elections in 1945. The example of Winston Churchill shows that democratic elections are won not based on past achievements, but on visions for the future. When the basic instinct of a nation under extreme conditions threatening its very existence is survival and return to normality, the future does not exist in this sense.

Russia Matters: Zelenskyy’s Talks With Trump, Vance Implode After Unprecedented Fracas in White House

YouTube link to full press conference between Trump & Zelensky here.

Russia Matters, 2/28/25

Donald Trump’s meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the White House turned into an unprecedented fracas after the U.S. leader berated his Ukrainian counterpart for courting WWIII, while JD Vance accused Zelenskyy of not being grateful enough for U.S. support. To an RM staffer watching the Sky News broadcast, the tone appeared to grow contentious after Trump said he was not aligned with either party to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict,1 but is rather aligned with the U.S. and the “good of the world.”2 Raising his voice at Zelenskyy in front of TV cameras, Trump said: “You don’t have the cards right now with us, you start having problems right now. You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III,” according to FT. Vance also actively participated in the melee: “Do you think that it’s respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?” The spat was followed by Zelenskyy’s televised departure from the White House with the much-previewed U.S.-Ukrainian deal on America’s access to revenues from Ukraine’ yet untapped mineral deposits unsigned. The battle of words between Trump and Vance on one side and Zelenskyy on the other side in the White House in front of TV cameras is unprecedented. No matter what justified grievances Zelenskyy may have with the current peace process, it might have been short-sighted on his part to get into this kind of public spat with the leader of the country that has very significant leverage vis-a-vis Ukraine. Zelenskyy—who said Feb. 23 that he is willing to step down as Ukraine’s president if it would secure lasting peace for his country—has strengthened his reputation as someone capable of standing up to world leaders, but it could backfire given that Ukraine depends on the U.S. for some of the critical elements of its defense.*Prior to engaging in a shouting match with Zelenskyy in the White House on Friday, Trump had continued this week to signal his desire to end the conflict in Ukraine and revive U.S.-Russian economic ties, prompting Putin to reciprocate rhetorically. Among other things, Trump again ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine as he continued to try to woo Putin with conciliatory gestures. “NATO—you can forget about,” Trump said. “I think that’s probably the reason the whole thing started.” Trump also claimed the war could be ended “within weeks” and warned of the risk of escalation into a “third world war.” The U.S. leader also pointed to the ongoing talks on “major economic development transactions which will take place between the United States and Russia.”3 In his turn, Putin claimed openness to peace and a “dialogue on … an indivisible European and global security system for the long term,” but reaffirmed his claim that annexed Ukrainian regions are “non-negotiable.” He also insisted that Ukraine cannot be allowed to continue serving as a “hostile outpost” against Russia. In separate comments this week, Putin said he is ready to cooperate with Washington on developing rare-earth elements that the U.S. needs. While praising Trump for his overtures and offering opportunities to revive some of the bilateral economic ties, Putin also tasked the FSB with thwarting any attempts to disrupt “newly resumed dialogue” between the U.S. and Russia. One would struggle to recall whether and when Putin has previously tasked the FSB with protecting U.S.-Russian relations from being disrupted. Also, Putin’s tasking of the FSB confirms that its remit is not limited to domestic security, making it a competitor to the SVR and GRU in activities outside Russia.Russian and U.S. officials met in Istanbul on Feb. 27 to discuss embassy-related issues as part of efforts to stabilize bilateral ties, according to MT/AFP. The U.S. State Department described the talks as “constructive,” with both sides identifying initial steps to stabilize diplomatic mission operations. The discussions addressed resolving financial and property disputes affecting diplomatic missions, including the return of six Russian properties seized by the U.S. between 2016 and 2018, according to Meduza. Russia also proposed resuming direct flights with the U.S. during the talks, according to Meduza. The U.S. delegation, led by Deputy Assistant Secretary Sonata Coulter, raised concerns about banking access and embassy staffing, while Russia’s delegation was headed by Alexander Darchiyev. During the talks, the U.S. approved Darchiyev as Russia’s new ambassador to Washington, according to Meduza.The leaders of China and Russia sought to project a unified front on the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine amid U.S. overtures to Moscow seen as attempts to pry the two powers apart, WSJ reported. In a phone call Feb. 24, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Putin described the relationship between their countries as robust and immune to interventions from any third country, according to this newspaper. Xi said that China and Russia are “true friends who share weal and woe, support each other and develop together.” The Kremlin said that Putin—who has also sent Security Council chief Sergei Shoigu to meet Xi this week—informed his counterpart “about the recent Russian-American contacts.” “The President of China expressed his support for the dialogue initiated between Russia and the United States,” according to the Kremlin.In the past month, Russia gained 191 square miles of Ukraine’s territory (about 2 Martha’s Vineyard islands). In Russia’s Kursk Oblast, Ukraine lost 10 square miles in the past week—the fastest rate of loss of Russian territory for Ukraine since early December 2024, according to the Feb. 26, 2025, issue of the Russia-Ukraine War Report Card. Additionally, Russia launched the largest number of Shahed drones against Ukraine to date on the night of Feb. 22 to 23 (267), according to Zelenskyy. Up to half of the drones that Russia launches are dummies, according to the Ukrainian air force.

Putin orders direct health care for the homeless

RT, 2/8/25

See this post here about Russia’s homelessness. – Natylie

Russian President Vladimir Putin has tasked the government with providing homeless people across Russia with free medical assistance, regardless of whether they have documents confirming their identity or registered address.

The deadline set for the directive is July 1, 2025. Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin has been handed the responsibility for implementing the task.

According to the document, published by Kremlin on Friday, the Russian government must “update medical care procedures and standards,” allowing for relevant assistance to be provided to citizens “without a fixed place of residence at their location.”

The document highlights that if the homeless lack a registered address, identity documents, a mandatory health insurance policy or an individual insurance account number, this must not become a barrier to them getting medical care.

In December, Putin pledged that the Russian Health Ministry would develop a mechanism for providing medical care to the homeless and those who have lost their documents. The president said that people who lack a place to stay constitute the most vulnerable category of those in need.

“We are obligated to help people who have found themselves in such a difficult life situation – if, of course, we ourselves are truly human,” Putin said, speaking during a meeting of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights.

Putin also said that the authorities would allocate 25% of the budget within the following three years to social services. He highlighted that it was appropriate to “talk not about expenses, but about investments,” adding that by allocating funds for salaries and pensions, healthcare, education, culture, and sports, the country is investing in human capital, in the preservation of people in the long run.

Riley Waggaman: Putin’s ULTIMATUM to Satanic West: Extract Russia’s natural resources OR ELSE!

By Riley Waggaman, Substack, 2/26/25

Riley Waggaman is an American writer and journalist who has lived in Russia for close to a decade. He has contributed to many websites, including Anti-Empire, Russian Faith, Brownstone Institute, Unlimited Hangout, and Geopolitics & Empire. He worked for Press TV, Russia Insider, and RT before going solo.

In a fiery speech marking three years since the start of Russia’s Special Military Operation in Ukraine and Kursk, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed hope that Moscow could “cooperate” with American companies to extract rare-earth metals in Russia and the “new territories” in East Ukraine:

[W]e would be ready to offer [cooperation] to our American partners – when I say partners, I mean not only administrative and government structures, but also companies – if they showed interest in working together.

We certainly have an order of magnitude – I want to emphasize this – an order of magnitude more resources of this kind than Ukraine. Russia is one of the undisputed leaders in reserves of these rare and rare-earth metals. We have them in in Murmansk in the North, in Kabardino-Balkaria in the Caucasus, in the Far East, in the Irkutsk region, and in Yakutia, in Tuva. These are quite capital-intensive investments, capital-intensive projects. We would be happy to work together with any foreign partners, including American ones.

Yes, by the way, regarding new territories, the same thing: we are ready to attract foreign partners, and our so-called new historical territories, which have returned to the Russian Federation, there are also certain reserves there. We are ready to work with our foreign partners, including the Americans, there.

On the same day that Putin gave his rousing speech, a civilian in one of Russia’s “new historical territories” was killed by a Ukrainian munition most likely supplied, or paid for, by Moscow’s “American partners”:

source: tass.ru

But that’s water under the bridge.

(You might be wondering how it’s possible, after three years of special military operations to “protect the people of Donbass”, that a town located less than 60 km from Donetsk is still being shelled by the Ukrainian military. You and me both, friend.)

Putin’s final warning to the Unipolar Globalists (“Would you be interested in strip-mining Donbass and Russia’s Far East, just like old times??”) came just a few days after Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, issued a chilling threat to US oil majors:

Dmitriev said he believed US oil majors that had “very successful business in Russia” would “at some point” return.

“Why would they forgo these opportunities that Russia gave them to have access to Russian natural resources?”

Dmitriev is taking part in ongoing negotiations with Washington and was present at the recent powwow in Riyadh.

For those unfamiliar with Mr. Dmitriev, here’s his bio—compliments of the World Economic Forum’s website:

BA (Hons) in Economics, Stanford University; MBA (Hons), Baker Scholar, Harvard Business School. Began career at Goldman Sachs and McKinsey & Company. Formerly, managed large private equity funds and completed a series of landmark transactions for Russia. Since 2011, Chief Executive Officer, RDIF. Member: BRICS and APEC Business Councils; Supervisory Board, ALROSA; Boards of Directors, Transneft, Rostelecom, Gazprombank, Mother and ChildMDMG and Russian Railways; Board of Trustees, Mariinsky Theatre, and Moscow State University, Russian Institute of Theatre Arts GITIS and National History Fund. Vice-President, Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs. Young Global Leader, World Economic Forum (2009). Recipient of honours and awards, including: named among “100 most influential private equity professionals of the decade”, Private Equity International (2011); Order of Alexander Nevsky and the Order of Honour for valuable contribution to international investment projects and the socio-economic development of Russia; Knight of the National Order of the Legion of Honor for paramount contribution to strengthening cooperation between Russia and France; King Abdulaziz Second-Class Order of Merit for contribution to strengthening cooperation between Russia and Saudi Arabia; Commander of the Order of the Star of Italy for special achievements in the development of friendly relations and cooperation between Italy and Russia; Order of Friendship for special achievements in the development of friendly relations and cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia.

Stanford, Harvard, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey & Company, and then groomed by Schwab before returning to Russia to promote “international investment projects”. The kind of Multipolar Freedom Fighter that the Globalists fear most.

source: weforum.org

(Coincidentally, Dmitriev was instrumental in financing and promoting Russia’s most famous clot-shot, Sputnik V.)

Apparently Dmitriev has been doing exemplary work, because on February 23 Putin appointed him “special representative of the Russian president for investment and economic cooperation with foreign countries”.

source: interfax.ru

Three years of slaughter. For business as usual.

Everything went according to plan?

Romania Police Arrest Georgescu; SWAT-Style Raids on Private Security

Active Measures, 2/26/25

Calin Georgescu, the populist frontrunner in Romania’s annulled 2024 presidential election, was arrested today while en route to register his candidacy for the upcoming May election.

He has been accused of spreading “disinformation,” “anti-Semitism,” and improper campaign financing, with charges that carry a prison sentence of 20 years.

Romanian authorities conducted 47 raids across multiple counties.

According to Romanian media outlet G4Media, sources say the raids targeted a private security firm hired by Georgescu. Are they targeting his contractors to take down their real target – Georgescu?

The militarized, SWAT-style raids and arrest of Georgescu come just months after the presidential election he won was canceled over evidence-free allegations of “Russian interference.”

Is this what is now meant by “European-style democracy?”

YouTube link here.

***

Romanian prosecutors charge Georgescu on six counts in criminal case rocking the country

, 2/26/25

Prosecutors in Romania have opened criminal proceedings against ultranationalist politician and 2024 presidential election candidate Călin Georgescu on six counts, including anticonstitutional acts and misreporting his finances, authorities said on Wednesday.

The charges also revolve around his support for sympathisers of the Iron Guard, a pre-World War II fascist and antisemitic movement and political party, which is illegal under Romanian law.

Georgescu, known as “The TikTok Messiah,” has also been barred from leaving the country and is not allowed to create new social media accounts on top of the ones he already owns, according to Euronews Romania sources.

The authorities have stopped short of arresting him, however.

“We are the people, we are the power. We will not kneel before anyone. This was expected. The whole world knows what is happening in Romania now. It’s the despair here combined with that of Brussels,” Georgescu said after leaving the Public Prosecutor’s Office on Wednesday evening.

Earlier in the day, Georgescu was picked up by police officers from a traffic stop and taken to the Prosecutor General’s Office for questioning.

The prosecutors questioned Georgescu as part of an investigation reportedly looking into “zero expenses” declared by Georgescu for last year’s electoral campaign, sources said.

He was initially asked to provide information over two counts: “false statements regarding funding sources” and “communicating false information,” Euronews Romania reported in their live coverage.

Prior to his questioning, prosecutors gathered all the documentation used by Georgescu to sign up for the presidential race, sources in the judiciary told Euronews Romania.

Georgescu was on his way to file his candidacy for the presidency when he was stopped in traffic, a statement issued by his team on Facebook claims.

“About 30 minutes ago, the system stopped him in traffic and he was pulled over for questioning at the Prosecutor General’s Office. Where is democracy, where are the partners who must defend democracy,” the statement said.

Contrary to Georgescu’s team’s claims, sources at the Electoral Commission told Euronews Romania that the candidate registration process has not opened yet.

Supporters of the far-right Party of Young People (POT), which splintered from another far-right party, AUR, and is among Georgescu’s most vocal backers, announced they would protest in front of the Prosecutor General’s Office. Some 200 people have gathered since.

“The judiciary has the duty to present extremely solid proof to the public (…) so that this criminal investigation is not hijacked into an election manifesto by a certain candidate,” Romanian Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu said in a statement.

“The judiciary is independent and the law must be applied regardless of the persons involved, respecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens,” Ciolacu added.

Raids in five counties

Georgescu’s questioning was part of a nationwide police action that also involved raids against a total of 27 individuals under investigation for a number of crimes, including anti-constitutional actions, possession of illegal weapons caches, instigating racism, fascism and xenophobia and “promoting a cult of personality accused of genocide and war crimes”.

The sweeping raids, taking place at more than 40 locations across five Romanian counties, also included Horațiu Potra, a mercenary previously linked to Georgescu.

Potra, who owns a private military company and is a former member of the French Foreign Legion, was detained in mid-December over allegations of planning large-scale protests in favour of Georgescu.

Potra was investigated on illegal possession of weapons and ammunition charges, as well as public incitement to unsanctioned gatherings, but was ultimately released.

Related

Declassified Romanian intelligence suggests ‘state actor’ behind Georgescu’s campaignRomania’s Georgescu slammed over links to controversial former mercenary

Georgescu came out on top in the first round of Romania’s presidential elections in December, which the country’s constitutional court annulled following the declassification of intelligence reports showing Russian involvement in influencing voters through social media to support the then-relatively unknown candidate.

In recent times, Romanian politics have suddenly come to the fore among top allies of US President Donald Trump, with his Vice President JD Vance, Elon Musk and Donald Trump Jr all backing Georgescu or criticising Bucharest for annulling the December vote.

The South African-born billionaire has reacted to news of Georgescu’s questioning, labelling it as “messed up”.

“They just arrested the person who won the most votes in the Romanian presidential election,” he said on his platform X on Wednesday.

You can follow Euronews Romania’s live coverage of this developing story here.

BNE Intellinews: Russia’s economy defies wave of bankruptcy fears with fastest private sector PMI growth in a year

BNE Intellinews, 2/5/25

Russia’s services and manufacturing sectors expanded at their fastest pace in a year in January, driven by improved demand conditions and a sharp rise in new orders, according to the latest Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) data from S&P Global. However, rising input costs and supply chain pressures weighed on business margins. (chart)

The seasonally adjusted S&P Global Russia Services PMI Business Activity Index rose to 54.6 in January, up from 51.2 in December, marking the strongest expansion in output in a year. The upturn was linked to “a sustained rise in new orders and more favourable demand conditions,” according to S&P Global.

The services sector’s performance was mirrored by Russia’s manufacturing industry, where the PMI increased to 53.1 in January from 50.8 the previous month, just above the 50 no-change benchmark. S&P Global report described the improvement as “significant overall”, noting that “the growth rate was the fastest since July 2024 and above average.”

Taken together the S&P Global Russia Composite PMI Output Index, which tracks both services and manufacturing, climbed to 54.7 in January from 51.1 in December. The overall expansion was the sharpest in a year, underpinned by “a faster rise in new orders” and “solid growth in private sector output.”

The strong January results come as a surprise in the context of predictions that Russia’s economy is cooling and many pundits have been predicting a wave of bankruptcies that could begin in the second quarter of this year. However, other pundits have argued that Russia’s economy is a lot more robust than it first appears, despite sky high interest rates and very sticky high inflation rates.

New business at service providers increased for the seventh consecutive month, with growth accelerating to its fastest pace in a year, reports S&P Global’s panelists. Companies attributed the rise to “a general improvement in demand conditions”, as well as a diversification of service lines.

The upturn in activity encouraged firms to increase staffing levels, with job creation recorded for a third successive month. However, employment growth was only marginal overall, as firms struggled with mounting backlogs of work. “The level of incomplete business rose at a solid pace,” S&P Global reported, citing ongoing pressure on capacity due to a strong influx of new orders.

High inflation remains a problem, despite the Central Bank of Russia (CBR)’s efforts to cool price growth using non-monetary policy methods. However, the regulator reported some successes in reducing borrowing, a major source of inflation in its January banking update. Tighter macroprudential restrictions have led to the first fall in consumer borrowing – mainly credit cards – where retail creditors paid off more loans than they took out in January for the first time in a year. Likewise, corporate borrowing fell by almost third (31%) in December, which is expected to reduce inflationary pressures as well. Mortgage lending is also down sharply after the sector was rocked by the end of a generous subsidy scheme last summer.

Nevertheless, despite robust demand, cost pressures continue to intensify in the service sector. Input prices rose at the fastest rate in a year, driven by higher supplier and transportation costs, as well as increased wage bills, according to surveyed firms.

Companies responded by passing higher costs on to customers, with selling prices rising at the joint-fastest pace in a year, alongside July 2024. “Firms commonly noted the pass-through of higher costs to customers,” the report stated.

However, managers remain optimistic on the outlook for this year, which is expected to be the toughest since the war in Ukraine began three years ago. Service providers reported the highest level of confidence since September, buoyed by expectations of stronger demand conditions and planned investments in new service lines and advertising, reports S&P Global.

Businesses continued to navigate inflationary pressures, with firms in both sectors raising prices to protect profit margins. “Selling prices increased at the sharpest rate since November 2023,” S&P Global said.

Ben Aris: Putin says sanctions have strengthened, not weakened, Russian economy

By Ben Aris, Intellinews, 2/21/25

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on February 21 that Western sanctions have played a “stimulating role” in Russia’s economic development, rather than bring it to its knees.

Domestic companies increasing relied on local scientific and technological expertise after they were cut off from technology sanctions that have largely failed. He noted that Russian firms had found domestic solutions that were often “more effective than their foreign counterparts”.

“External problems, sanctions, with all the challenges and difficulties, played an important, stimulating role for us. Russian companies are now increasingly turning to our scientists and receiving such assistance from them. Moreover, domestic solutions often turn out to be more effective than foreign analogues,” Putin said at the plenary session of the Future Technologies Forum, TASS reported.

Putin also announced that science funding will be increased to 2% of GDP. “It is critical to channel all additional resources to support exactly promising, breakthrough areas,” he said.

A VTsIOM poll this week found that most Russians agree and believe the war in Ukraine has reduced social inequality and made Russian society fairer for the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Since the launch of Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine, attitudes have shifted partly thanks to the surge in state spending that has disproportionately benefited Russia’s poorest regions. In order to entice regular Russians to sign up for military service, average incomes have jumped and regional governments have been paying out enormous sign up bonuses that are several times higher than the average income. A study by the Bank of Finland institute for Emerging Economies (BOFIT) showed that regional retail deposits have grown fastest in Russia’s poorest regions.

At the same time, despite the high rates of inflation of about 10%, nominal wage increases have been rising even faster by around 12% a year, leading to a record growth in real disposable income that has fuelled a consumer boom in the last few years and created a new War Middle Class. Bank deposits and savings have swelled as a result.

While many Russians were against the idea of the invasion of Ukraine at the start of the war, now that it has started, most believe that at Russia should not lose what is widely seen as a proxy war with Nato. Patriotism is at an all-time high and Putin’s personal trust rating is currently at 80%, according to a survey conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM).

“When asked directly if they trusted Putin, 80% of participants responded affirmatively (no changes). The majority also endorsed of the president’s job performance (80%, no changes),” the service said, reports TASS. A total of 53% of those polled said they approved of the Russian government’s handling of the country (no changes), while 56% approved of Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin’s performance (a 1% decrease).

Russia’s economy put in a better than expected 4.1% growth and growth for 2023 was also upgraded to 4.1%, Mishustin told Putin last week. However, the economy is now cooling and growth is expected to slow sharply this year.

Shortly after the extreme Western sanctions were imposed in the first month of the war three years ago, Central Bank of Russia (CBR) governor Elvia Nabiullina warned Russian companies that they would have to go back two or three generations of technology to keep their production lines running. However, that did not come to pass.

Russia’s economy was rescued by the “accelerated adaptability” of private companies, top Kremlin policymakers told St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) last summer.

“Russia has developed antibodies [to the sanctions] and it has a perfectly healthy body. All we have to do now is develop some more muscles,” was how Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov described the situation.

Part of this success was Russia quickly found trade partners willing to act as middle-men to bypass sanctions and the import of technology fell only 2% by value in 2023 from the pre-war levels. But it was also due to Russian enterprises boosting investment and re-tooling their production lines, using technology from places like China that was not under sanctions. Russia is Europe’s manufacturing powerhouse and the level of technology needed is not the highest and so does not have to be exclusively sourced in the West.

“Accelerated adaptability” was the mot du jour at SPIEF. A CBR survey conducted in the autumn of 2022 found that only a tiny share of companies had found no solution to replacing banned goods. Trade via friendly third countries means that most of the products that disappeared in the first half that year were back in the stores by the end of the year. In March 2023, Putin remarked that “every cloud has a silver lining”, describing the restrictions as a step towards strengthening Russia’s economic and financial sovereignty.

In one example, Russian Deputy Health Minister Sergei Glagolev said earlier this month that the share of domestic production among drugs registered in Russia neared 80% in 2024, Interfax reported.

In recent weeks, reports have emerged suggesting the potential return of Western firms to Russia as a result of the unexpectedly warm tones at the opening session of the Russo-US ceasefire talks in Riyadh on February 18. Against this backdrop, Russian officials have signalled a selective approach to the re-entry of Western companies.

Western companies will be admitted to be in sectors without risks for the national economy, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on February 21, but they need not be “discouraged from the Russian market,” the foreign minister added.

On February 20, First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov announced that Russia would permit only companies it deemed beneficial to return to its market. He added the following day that he would be willing to consider allowing US company Boeing to restart purchases of Russian titanium, reported Interfax.

Speaking at the Future Technologies Forum the following day, Putin instructed the government to regulate the process for companies seeking re-entry, a sharp volte-face from the Kremlin’s previous policy of de facto appropriating leading Western business still operating in Russia.

Uriel Araujo: Anti-Russian speech fueling neo-Nazism across Europe – “maidanization” of the continent

By Uriel Araujo, InfoBrics, 2/6/25

Uriel Araujo, PhD is a writer and anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

An Estonia court has recently convicted members of a neo-Nazi terrorist group called Feuerkrieg Division, which is known to plan attacks. Meanwhile the Slovak police issued a warning about a Nazi group plotting violent attacks. According to the Internal Security Service, such extremism has the potential to escalate and has been spreading over the last years.

Meanwhile, just last week the Slovak police issued a warning about a Nazi organization named “Valhalla” connected to violent attacks. I’ve written much about the reality of neo-Nazism and its role in post-Maidan Ukrainian politics, but there is a larger context: National-Socialist (Nazi) ideology and its variants remain a real problem in post-Soviet states in Eastern and Central Europe (including Baltic nations). This international far-right network has a presence in Western Europe, too, although it is particularly active in Central and Eastern Europe.

For instance, this year once again, as has been the case every February, hundreds of neo-fascist and neo-Nazi activists will soon gather in Budapest to commemorate the Nazi German 1945 failed attack against the Soviet army, calling it the “Day of Honour”. On that day German and Hungarian forces battled against Soviet troops. The event involves a music festival with various far-right bands, and the revenue is said to fund extremist organizations, including terrorist groups, as is often the case with such concerts.

In December last year a neo-Nazi musical event in Budapest co-organized by a “Nordic Sun Cultural Foundation” was raided by Hungarian authorities. One of the bands invited is named Der Stürmer, after the infamous anti-semitic German tabloid of the Reich period. It is part of the NSBM (National Socialist Black Metal) movement.

There is a recurring theme in all such groups and events, namely anti-Soviet speech, which translates itself into Russophobia. In a number of countries there are of course historical grievances involving some Soviet measures, and such politics of memory is employed to mobilize anti-Russian discourse and to fuel national and ethnic chauvinism.

In this context, Third Reich forces and its allies as well as Nazi collaborators are typically glorified as heroes in a sacred struggle against communism or Russian (and Jewish) domination, the way they often phrase it. The Soviet Union is thus equated with the Russian Federation.

In this context, monuments honoring Soviet soldiers of forces who fought against the Third Reich have been often vandalized. This happened recently in Kosice, for instance – Slovakia’s second-largest city. Such Slovakian monuments have also been painted with Ukrainian flags, interestingly enough. One could go on and on with similar cases.

The matter goes beyond radical groups, sometimes reaching state and official level. Such has been the case in Latvia, for instance, for many years. Every March 16, many Latvians parade the streets of Riga to celebrate their veterans of Second World War Two, who fought alongside Nazi forces against the Soviet Union. Albeit shocking to most of the Western world, this is rather common across Baltic countries: in 2019, for example, Cherrie Daniels, US diplomat, called on Lithuania to not glorify Holocaust collaborators. Such Waffen SS veterans were not just anti-Communists: they took part in massacring Jews.

It has been a huge controversy in Canada, as well. In 2018, Canadian public opinion was urging its government (which has soldiers based there) to denounce Latvia for such parades. Ironically enough, as recently as 2023 the Canadian parliament honoured Yaroslav Hunka, an elderly Ukrainian Canadian who fought in SS Division Galicia (Waffen-SS) of the Nazi Party. He proudly described having taken part in the struggle against Russia, drawing parallels with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and got a standing ovation. The affair became a scandal.

The glorification of Nazi forces and collaborators and the attacks on the memory of those who fought against the Third Reich (including monuments) played a large part in the development of the tensions which escalated into the Donbass War, since the 2014 nationalist Maidan revolution in Ukraine. Ukraine in fact is an extreme case, where the far-right and even neo-Nazis, albeit a minority of voters, hold tremendous power, politically and also in the military and paramilitary realm (the Azov regiment being merely the most famous one).

The situation is contradictory to the point that a native Russian-speaking Jewish President, Volodymyr Zelensky, is literally hostage to ultra-nationalist militias and military, including Nazis, who are on the record stating, like Dmytro Yarosh, that Zelensky would end up “hanging on a tree on Khreshchatyk” if he ever “betrayed” Ukrainian nationalists by negotiating with Moscow to end the (Donbass) conflict.

It is no wonder Ukraine became a new hub for the far-right globally, as TIME magazine reported back in 2021. Moreover, the SITE Intelligence Group, a private organization that tracks extremist organizations, has warned about far-right militias in Europe joining Ukrainian nazis in their struggle. All the Nazi regalia and SS helmets routlined caught on camera among Ukrainian soldiers are quite real: those are not just fashion statements.

Post-Maidan Ukraine does not only fuel and promote neo-Nazism internationally – it also invites antagonism from competing ultra-nationalist forces. The chauvinistic nature of the current Ukraine regime, as I wrote, alienates its national minorities (not just ethnic Russian and pro-Russian ones) and thereby enhances tensions with neighboring countries such as Poland and Hungary, who in turn have their own problems with their own strands of irredentist ultra-nationalism.

To sum it up, radical anti-Russian feelings today are largely connected to an “alternative” pro-Nazi reading of World War II key events. If unchecked, these forces could unleash the total “maidanization” of Europe, a trend one can already see.

Reuters: Exclusive: Russia could concede $300 billion in frozen assets as part of Ukraine war settlement, sources say

Reuters, 2/21/25

Summary

-Russia may concede frozen assets for Ukraine reconstruction, sources say

-Russia will demand some of the funds for territories it controls, sources says

-US and Russian officials met in Riyadh, not clear if frozen funds discussed

MOSCOW, Feb 21 (Reuters) – Russia could agree to using $300 billion of sovereign assets frozen in Europe for reconstruction in Ukraine but will insist that part of the money is spent on the one-fifth of the country that Moscow’s forces control, three sources told Reuters.

Russia and the United States held their first face-to-face talks on ending the Ukraine war on Feb. 18 in Saudi Arabia and both U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have said they hope to meet soon.

After Putin sent troops into Ukraine in 2022, the United States and its allies prohibited transactions with Russia’s central bank and finance ministry, blocking $300-$350 billion of sovereign Russian assets, mostly European, U.S. and British government bonds held in a European securities depository.

While discussions between Russia and the United States are at a very early stage, one idea being floated in Moscow is that Russia could propose using a large chunk of the frozen reserves for rebuilding Ukraine as part of a possible peace deal, according to three sources with knowledge of the matter.

Swathes of eastern Ukraine have been devastated by the war and hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed or injured on both sides while millions of Ukrainians have fled to European countries or Russia. A year ago, the World Bank estimated reconstruction and recovery would cost $486 billion.

The sources spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the discussions and because discussions are only preliminary. The Kremlin declined to comment.

The idea that Russia may agree to using the frozen money to help rebuild Ukraine has not been previously reported, and may give an insight into what Russia is willing to compromise on as Moscow and Washington seek to end the war, at a time when Trump is pushing for U.S. access to Ukrainian minerals to repay Washington’s support.

Russia’s main demands to stop the fighting include a withdrawal of Kyiv’s troops from Ukrainian territory Moscow claims and an end to Ukraine’s ambitions to join NATO. Ukraine says Russia must withdraw from its territory, and wants security guarantees from the West. The Trump administration says Ukraine has unrealistic, “illusionary” goals.

Reuters could not establish whether the idea of using the frozen funds was discussed between Russia and U.S. counterparts in the Saudi meeting.

The Group of Seven stated in 2023 that the Russian sovereign funds will remain frozen until Russia pays for the damage it inflicted in Ukraine. Trump has said he would like Russia to return to the G7, a grouping of wealthy nations.

Russian Central Bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina said on Thursday the bank was not part of any talks on lifting sanctions or unfreezing of Russia’s reserves.

Russia has previously said plans to use the funds in Ukraine amounted to robbery.

The Ukrainian foreign ministry and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The British Foreign Office declined to comment.

“Nothing about Ukraine and the EU can be decided without Ukraine and the EU,” said Anitta Hipper, a spokesperson for the European Commission. She said the EU and member states were helping Ukraine strengthen its position ahead of any talks, including with a new round of sanctions on Russia.

Renaissance Capital lead analyst Oleg Kouzmin said the differences between the United States and Europe, which controls most of the assets, would complicate a lifting of the freeze.

“It would require the European side to fully back the current stance of the U.S. aimed at dialog with Russia,” Kouzmin said, calling such a scenario “very optimistic”.

TWO THIRD SPLIT?

Russia’s frozen sovereign assets have been the subject of intense debate in the West with some proposing it be essentially given to Ukraine through a complex “repatriation loan”, opens new tab.

One source with knowledge of the discussions in Moscow said that Russia could accept up to two-thirds of the reserves going to the restoration of Ukraine under a peace deal, provided there were accountability guarantees.

The rest could go to the Russian-controlled territories in eastern Ukraine that Russia now considers to be part of Russia, said the source.

Another source with knowledge of discussions said that Moscow would agree to using the money to rebuild Ukraine but that it was too early to say what the possible division might be. Two sources stressed that it was important to discuss which companies would get future contracts for reconstruction.

A different source, close to the Kremlin but not directly involved in the discussions, said that Russia would still demand the lifting of the freeze on the assets as part of gradual sanctions relief.

Several Western officials, especially in the German government and European Central Bank, have been reluctant to simply confiscate sovereign reserves, warning that such a move could face legal challenges and undermine the euro as a reserve currency.

Russian officials have repeatedly warned that the state confiscation of assets goes against free market principles, destroys banking security and erodes faith in reserve currencies. In retaliation, Russia has drafted legislation to confiscate funds from companies and investors from so-called unfriendly states, those that have hit it with sanctions. The bill has not yet been voted in Russia’s State Duma lower house.

EUROPEAN FREEZE

At the time the assets were frozen, Russia’s central bank said it held around $207 billion in euro assets, $67 billion in U.S. dollar assets and $37 billion in British pound assets.

It also had holdings comprising $36 billion of Japanese yen, $19 billion in Canadian dollars, $6 billion in Australian dollars and $1.8 billion in Singapore dollars. Its Swiss franc holdings were about $1 billion.

Russia reports its total gold and foreign exchange reserves as around $627 billion, including the frozen funds. The value of Russia’s frozen assets fluctuates according to bond prices and currency movements.

The bank’s biggest bond holdings were in the sovereign bonds of China, Germany, France, Britain, Austria and Canada. Russia’s gold reserves were held in Russia.

Around 159 billion euros of the assets were managed by Belgian clearing house Euroclear Bank as of early last year, Euroclear has said.

While the freezing of the funds has angered Moscow, some of Russia’s most outspoken war hawks have previously acknowledged Russia may eventually part with the frozen reserves, provided that the controlled territories stay within Russia.

“I propose a solution. They pay this money towards our purchase of those territories, those lands that want to be with us,” said Margarita Simonyan, head of the Russian state broadcaster RT, in 2023.

The Russian-controlled territories of Ukraine account for about 1% of Russia’s gross domestic product, but some economists believe that their share could grow quickly if they remain with Russia when the war ends.

The regions already provide around 5% of Russia’s grain harvest.

Ukraine War Negotiations Framed By ‘Istanbul Protocol Agreement’

By Kyle Anzalone, Libertarian Institute, 2/24/25

President Donald Trump’s Middle East Envoy, Steve Witkoff, explained that talks on ending the Ukraine war are in the Istanbul Protocol Agreement framework. That protocol refers to a deal that was nearly signed between Kiev and Moscow that would have ended the war in Ukraine within a few months. 

Witkoff gave multiple interviews on Sunday, discussing ongoing negotiations about the Ukraine War. He told CNN that a deal was “very close” and could be completed in the coming week.

Witkoff said the current talks follow the Istanbul Protocol Agreement. “There were very, very what I’ll call cogent and substantive negotiations framed in something that’s called the Istanbul Protocol Agreement.” He continued, “We came very, very close to signing something, and I think we’ll be using that framework as a guidepost to get a peace deal done between Ukraine and Russia, and I think that will be an amazing day.”

In March and April 2022, the first months after the Russian invasion, US allies Israel and Turkey hosted talks between Ukraine and Russia. In Istanbul, the two sides agreed to the outline of an agreement. 

Under that deal, Russia would withdraw from territory seized after the invasion in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality and limits on its military. In addition, Kiev would recognize Crimea as Russian and its Western backers would lift sanctions on Moscow. 

However, Washington and London did want to end the war so soon after the invasion and promised Kiev to provide Ukraine with all the support it would need to win the war. At the time, some members of NATO saw the war as an opportunity to use Ukraine to weaken Russia. 

In April 2022, then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson traveled to Kiev and informed Ukrainian President Zelensky that he would not receive Western support if he signed the deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

In the following two years, Russia has annexed four additional regions of Ukraine. It is unclear how the current deal would differ from the initial Istanbul Protocol Agreement, as Putin has said Russia will not return annexed territory. Since talks broke down, at least hundreds of thousands have died in the conflict, with President Trump asserting the true death toll is in the millions. 

On Monday, Trump indicated he would be willing to lift sanctions on Moscow, or at least begin to normalize the economic relationship between the superpowers, as part of a deal to end the war in Ukraine. “I am in serious discussions with President Vladimir Putin of Russia concerning the ending of the War, and also major Economic Development transactions which will take place between the United States and Russia,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Talks are proceeding very well!”

US and Russian offices are preparing to meet for another round of talks later this week.