Despite objections from across the world, Netanyahu’s government is redrawing the map with tank tracks
In early August, Benjamin Netanyahu dispelled any lingering ambiguity. In a direct interview with Fox News, he made explicit what had long been implied through diplomatic euphemisms: Israel intends to take full military control of the Gaza, dismantle Hamas as a political and military entity, and eventually transfer authority to a “non-Hamas civilian administration,” ideally with Arab participation.
“We’re not going to govern Gaza,” the prime minister added. But even then, the formula of “seize but not rule” read more like a diplomatic veil for a much harsher course of action.
The very next day, Israel’s security cabinet gave formal approval to this trajectory, initiating preparations for an assault on Gaza City. The UN secretary-general responded swiftly, warning that such an operation risked a dangerous escalation and threatened to normalize what had once been an avoidable humanitarian catastrophe.
August exposed the war in its most unforgiving clarity. Strikes on Zeitoun, Shuja’iyya, Sabra, and operations in the Jabalia area became a part of the daily rhythm. The encirclement of Gaza City tightened slowly but relentlessly. Brigadier General Effi Defrin confirmed the launch of a new phase, with troops reaching the city’s outskirts. At the same time, the government called up tens of thousands of reservists in a clear signal that Israel was prepared to take the city by force, even if the window for a negotiated pause technically remained open.
In this context, talk of “stabilization” rings hollow. Infrastructure lies in ruins, the healthcare system is on the verge of collapse, aid lines often end under fire, and international monitoring groups are recording signs of impending famine. The conflict is no longer a conventional war between armies. It is taking on the contours of a managed disintegration of civilian life.
But Gaza is not the whole picture. On the West Bank, the logic of military control is being formalized both legally and spatially. On July 23, the Knesset voted by majority to adopt a declaration advocating the extension of Israeli sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley. While framed as a recommendation, the move effectively normalizes institutionalizing the erosion of previously drawn red lines.
It is within this framework that the E1 plan of Israeli settlements in the West Bank must be understood as a critical link in the eastern belt surrounding Jerusalem. On August 20, the Higher Planning Committee of the Civil Administration gave the green light for the construction of over 3,400 housing units between East Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim. For urban planners, it’s about “filling in the gaps” between existing developments. For policymakers and military officials, it represents a strategic pivot.
First, E1 aims to create a continuous Jewish presence encircling Jerusalem and to merge Ma’ale Adumim into the city’s urban fabric. This reinforces the eastern flank of the capital, provides strategic depth, and secures Highway 1 – the vital corridor to the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley.
Second, it severs East Jerusalem from its natural Palestinian hinterland. E1 physically blocks the West Bank’s access to the eastern part of the city, cutting East Jerusalem off from Ramallah in the north and Bethlehem in the south.
Third, it dismantles the territorial continuity of any future Palestinian state. Instead of a unified space, a network of isolated enclaves emerges – linked by bypass roads and tunnels that fail to compensate for the loss of direct access to Jerusalem, both symbolic and administrative.
Fourth, it seeks to shift the debate over Jerusalem’s status from the realm of diplomacy into the realm of irrevocable facts. Once the eastern belt is built up, the vision of East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state becomes almost impossible to realize.
Finally, E1 embodies two opposing principles: for Israelis, a “managed continuity” of control; for Palestinians, a “managed vacuum” of governance. One side gains an uninterrupted corridor of dominance, the other is left with a fragmented territory and diminished prospects for self-determination.
It is no surprise, then, that international reaction was swift and unambiguous from the UN and EU to London and Canberra. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, commenting on the launch of E1, said out loud what the maps had already suggested: the project would “bury” the idea of a Palestinian state.
In an August broadcast on i24News, Netanyahu said he feels a “strong connection” to the vision of a “Greater Israel.” For Arab capitals this was a confirmation of his strategic maximalism. The military campaign in Gaza and the planning-led expansion in the West Bank aren’t two parallel tracks, but parts of a single, integrated agenda. The regional response was swift and uncompromising from Jordanian warnings to collective condemnation from international institutions.
The broader picture reveals deliberate design: In Gaza, forced subjugation without any credible or legitimate “handover of keys”; in the West Bank, a reconfiguration of political geography via E1 and its related projects, translating a diplomatic dispute into the language of roads, zoning, and demography. The language of “temporariness” and “no intention to govern” functions as cover, in practice, the temporary hardens into permanence, and control becomes institutionalized as the new normal.
As the lines converge in Gaza’s shattered neighborhoods, in the planning documents for East Jerusalem, and in statements from Israeli leadership, the space for any negotiated outcome narrows further. What began as a pledge to dismantle Hamas is increasingly functioning as a mechanism to erase the word ‘Palestine’ from the future map. In this framework, there is no “day after.” What exists instead is a carefully prearranged aftermath designed to leave no room for alternatives. The map is drawn before peace is reached, and in the end, it is the map that becomes the decisive argument, not a treaty.
The current military operation, referred to as Gideon’s Chariot 2, has not been officially declared an occupation. However, its character on the ground strongly resembles one. IDF armored units have reached Sabra and are engaged in ongoing combat at the Zeitoun junction, a strategic point where fighting has continued for over a week. Military descriptions of these actions as operations on the periphery increasingly resemble the opening phase of a full assault on Gaza City. In the last 24 hours, the pattern has only intensified. Artillery and airstrikes have been systematically clearing eastern and northern districts, including Zeitoun, Shuja’iyya, Sabra, and Jabalia, in preparation for armored and infantry advances.
The military effort is now reinforced by a large-scale mobilization of personnel. A phased conscription has been approved. The main wave, composed of 60,000 reservists, is expected to report by September 2, with additional groups to follow through the fall and winter. This is not a tactical raid but a prolonged urban combat campaign that will be measured not by military markers on a map but by the ability to sustain logistical flow and personnel rotations under intense conditions.
Diplomatic efforts are unfolding alongside the military campaign. On August 18, Hamas, through Egyptian and Qatari intermediaries, agreed to the outline of a ceasefire known as the Witkoff Plan. It proposes a 60-day pause, the release of ten living hostages, and the return of the remains of eighteen others in exchange for Israeli actions concerning Palestinian detainees and humanitarian access. The Israeli government has not officially agreed to the plan and insists that all hostages must be included. Nonetheless, Hamas’s offer is already being used by Israel as leverage. It serves more as a tactical pressure point than a genuine breakthrough.
This context gives meaning to Netanyahu’s latest directive calling for a shortened timeline to capture Hamas’s remaining strongholds. The accelerated ground campaign aims to pressure Hamas into making broader concessions under the framework of the proposed deal. If Hamas refuses, Israel will present a forceful seizure of Gaza City as a justified action to its domestic audience.
Observers close to the government interpret the strategy in exactly these terms. The objective is not only to dismantle Hamas’s infrastructure but also to escalate the stakes and force a binary choice between a truce on Israeli terms and a full military entry into the city. Even the most carefully designed military strategy eventually confronts the same dilemma: the challenge of the day after. Without a legitimate mandate and without a coherent administrative framework, even a tactical victory risks resulting in a managed vacuum. In such a scenario, control shifts hands on the map, but the underlying threat remains unresolved.
Ideology also plays a central role in shaping this campaign. In August, Netanyahu publicly affirmed his strong personal identification with the vision of the Promised Land and Greater Israel. This statement provoked strong reactions in Arab capitals and further discredited Israel’s narrative that it seeks to control Gaza without governing it. The on-the-ground reality is more complex and sobering. After nearly two years of conflict, the IDF has not eliminated the threat. It has suffered significant losses, and there is no clear consensus within the officer corps on launching another ground offensive in Gaza.
According to reports by Israeli media, Israel’s top military leadership had warned that a complete takeover of Gaza would come with heavy casualties and heightened risks to hostages. For this reason, earlier operations deliberately avoided areas where hostages were likely being held. Leaked assessments suggest that the General Staff had proposed a strategy centered on encircling Gaza City and applying incremental pressure over time. However, the political leadership opted instead for speed and direct assault. The casualties already number in the hundreds, and major urban combat has yet to begin.
The domestic opposition has made its stance clear. After a security briefing, opposition leader Yair Lapid stated that a new occupation of Gaza would be a grave mistake and one for which Israel would pay a high price. Pressure on the government is mounting both internally, through weekly demonstrations demanding a hostage deal, and externally. Countries such as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Malta are preparing to take steps toward recognizing Palestinian statehood at the United Nations General Assembly in September. In the language of international diplomacy, this move signals a counterbalance to both Hamas’s hardline stance and Israel’s rightward territorial ambitions. The more forcefully Israel insists on capturing Gaza at all costs, the stronger the global response becomes in favor of formalizing Palestine’s status.
However, the situation now transcends local dynamics. Against the backdrop of worldwide instability, including regional conflicts, disrupted global trade routes and rising geopolitical risk, the Gaza campaign increasingly appears to be part of a broader, long-term war of attrition. Within Israel’s strategic thinking, the ultimate objective seems to be the closure of the Palestinian question altogether. This entails dismantling all political structures and actors that might, in any combination, threaten Israeli security. Under this logic, humanitarian consequences are not considered constraints.
A recent UN report illustrates the magnitude of the crisis. For the first time, the Food and Agriculture Organization officially declared catastrophic hunger in Gaza, reaching the fifth and highest level of the Integrated Food Security Classification, or IPC. By the end of September, more than 640,000 people are expected to face total food deprivation. Yet even this alarming assessment has not shifted the current trajectory. Western European declarations of intent to recognize Palestinian statehood have also failed to become decisive turning points.
Israel now faces a rare and difficult crossroads. One path leads through diplomacy. It includes a 60-day pause, an initial exchange of captives, and a broader acknowledgment that lasting security is achieved not only through military force, but also through institutions, legal rights, and legitimacy. The other path leads into a renewed spiral of urban warfare. It involves the deployment of more reservists, increasingly severe military orders, and objectives that grow less clearly defined with each passing day. In Sabra, the physical tracks of tanks are already visible before any clear political statement has been made. Ultimately, though, the outcome will be determined not by battlefield reports, but by legal, diplomatic, and institutional formulas. These will decide whether the fall of Gaza marks the end of the war or simply the beginning of a new chapter.
As assault plans are finalized, mobilization lists expand, and ideological rhetoric intensifies, the sense of inevitability grows stronger. This operation resembles less an isolated campaign and more a component of a much longer-term project to reconfigure geography and status. If that logic continues to dominate, the day after will already be written, and it will allow no room for alternatives. In that scenario, the map will carry more weight than any agreement. Facts on the ground will become the ultimate authority, overshadowing diplomatic recognitions, international reports, and humanitarian data alike.
The US president has insisted European member states spend more on their own defense
The US has begun to phase out foreign funding programs for NATO countries bordering Russia in an effort to push its European allies to pay for their own security, Financial Times has reported.
Pentagon officials last week told Western European diplomats that Washington will no longer fund programs aimed at training and equipping the militaries of the bloc’s eastern member states, the outlet wrote on Thursday, citing anonymous officials.
Moscow has long insisted that it views eastward NATO expansion, and the military buildup of countries on Russia’s western border as a security threat.
The funding for the Pentagon program needs to be approved by the US Congress, but the White House has not applied for more money, according to FT. The availability of previously approved funds reportedly ends next September.
Western European diplomats were “startled” by Washington’s move, and worried whether their domestic funding could cope with the loss, the outlet wrote. “It’s causing a lot of concern and uncertainty,” the newspaper cited one diplomat as saying.
The cut corresponds with US President Donald Trump’s earlier executive action on realigning foreign aid with his ‘America First’ doctrine, FT said, citing a White House official.
“This action has been coordinated with European countries in line with the executive order and the president’s long-standing emphasis on ensuring Europe takes more responsibility for its own defense,” the official reportedly said.
Under pressure from Trump, European NATO states promised to increase military budgets to 5% of GDP earlier this year. EU governments have also announced large-scale military investments, citing an alleged threat posed by Russia.
Moscow has repeatedly brushed off assertions that it intends to attack the US-led military bloc.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has pointed to the military buildup and Western European leaders’ increasingly bellicose rhetoric, accusing them of steering towards a direct clash. “They are once again trying to prepare Europe for war – not some hybrid war, but a real war against Russia,” he warned in July.
The US president has insisted European member states spend more on their own defense
The US has begun to phase out foreign funding programs for NATO countries bordering Russia in an effort to push its European allies to pay for their own security, Financial Times has reported.
Pentagon officials last week told Western European diplomats that Washington will no longer fund programs aimed at training and equipping the militaries of the bloc’s eastern member states, the outlet wrote on Thursday, citing anonymous officials.
Moscow has long insisted that it views eastward NATO expansion, and the military buildup of countries on Russia’s western border as a security threat.
The funding for the Pentagon program needs to be approved by the US Congress, but the White House has not applied for more money, according to FT. The availability of previously approved funds reportedly ends next September.
Western European diplomats were “startled” by Washington’s move, and worried whether their domestic funding could cope with the loss, the outlet wrote. “It’s causing a lot of concern and uncertainty,” the newspaper cited one diplomat as saying.
The cut corresponds with US President Donald Trump’s earlier executive action on realigning foreign aid with his ‘America First’ doctrine, FT said, citing a White House official.
“This action has been coordinated with European countries in line with the executive order and the president’s long-standing emphasis on ensuring Europe takes more responsibility for its own defense,” the official reportedly said.
Under pressure from Trump, European NATO states promised to increase military budgets to 5% of GDP earlier this year. EU governments have also announced large-scale military investments, citing an alleged threat posed by Russia.
Moscow has repeatedly brushed off assertions that it intends to attack the US-led military bloc.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has pointed to the military buildup and Western European leaders’ increasingly bellicose rhetoric, accusing them of steering towards a direct clash. “They are once again trying to prepare Europe for war – not some hybrid war, but a real war against Russia,” he warned in July.
Denouncing political persecution, they are preparing an appeal to European courts and the UN
International human rights activists have come together to support the defense in the case of the Gagauzia leader, Evgenia Gutsul, sentenced by a Moldovan court to 7 years in prison for illicit financing of a party and an electoral campaign. French lawyer William Julie and legal advisor to the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, Gonzalo Boye, have intervened in defense of Gutsul’s interests. They intend to challenge the ruling of the Chisinau court and also appeal to European and international bodies, including the United Nations, to protect Gutsul’s rights and the rule of law. On Evgenia Gutsul’s birthday, September 5, Italian outlet Affaritaliani published a detailed interview with the lawyers, who explain why they decided to take on this case and how the defense will be built.
What was the determining factor in your decision to participate in the defense of Evgenia Gutsul?
Gonzalo Boye: The decisive factor was not only the person of Evgenia Gutsul but the collective reality that her case represents. According to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, political persecution often does not target an isolated individual, but an objectively identifiable group of people who embody certain political or ideological positions. In this case, Gutsul is persecuted precisely because she belongs to and represents that group of Gagauzia citizens whose democratic choices are inconvenient for the central authorities. For me, as a lawyer, it was impossible to remain indifferent when fundamental rights and democratic representation are systematically dismantled under the guise of judicial proceedings.
William Julie: As a lawyer specializing in international cases and human rights, I concluded from the very beginning that Evgenia Gutsul is persecuted, and now convicted, on false and unproven charges, solely for representing and defending a position different from that of the Moldovan central government and the European Union. The ongoing criminal proceedings leave no doubt that this is an evident attempt by the Moldovan state to silence her, despite her being a legitimately elected representative of the Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia. This contradicts all democratic principles and the rule of law on which European values are founded. Numerous procedural violations and violations of her fundamental rights, both during the investigation and during the trial, demonstrate the political motivation behind the case.
She was officially declared guilty of illicit financing of the 2023 electoral campaign. What are your counterarguments?
Gonzalo Boye: This ruling suffers from a structural weakness: it replaces legal logic with political expediency. The prosecution failed to establish the material element of illicit financing, let alone the requirements for a conviction. On the contrary, the proceedings were conducted with bias, ignoring the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, the notion of “illicit financing” was extended to cover perfectly lawful activities, a typical technique of politically motivated trials. Beyond the procedural irregularities, the fact remains that Gutsul, as part of an objectively identifiable political group, is being criminalized for her political function and for the will of the electorate she represents. This is incompatible with the rule of law and the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union.
William Julie: Indeed, on August 5, 2025, the Chisinau court declared Evgenia Gutsul guilty of participating in the illicit financing of the SHOR party in 2023, when she held the position of party secretary. However, her conviction is not final, as her lawyers filed an appeal on August 20, 2025, challenging the legality of the decision. Therefore, she is still considered innocent under Moldovan law. Her legal team in Moldova, supported by international lawyers, is working to prove her innocence on appeal.
Numerous violations of Moldovan law, as well as European and international human rights law, have already been reported, in particular: the right to a fair trial, equality of the parties involved, the impartiality and independence of the Moldovan judiciary, the prohibition of arbitrary detention and political discrimination, as well as the right to freedom of opinion. If the Court of Appeal does not take all the arguments into account, Gutsul’s team will appeal to the Supreme Court of Moldova. If the conviction is upheld by all Moldovan courts, the case will be brought before the European Court of Human Rights and the relevant UN bodies, including the Human Rights Committee, as Moldova has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocols.
Gonzalo Boye: Our defense has two dimensions. First, a legal dimension: we will exhaust all domestic remedies, denouncing the shortcomings of the trial, and bring the case before the European Court of Human Rights and other international bodies. We will demonstrate that the conviction is the result of discrimination against an identifiable political group, in violation of Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
Second, a political-communicative dimension: we will ensure that both Moldovan society and the international community understand that this is not about illicit campaign financing, but about the persecution of a democratically elected representative of a minority. Silence would mean complicity; denunciation creates accountability.
William Julie: As already mentioned, all available legal remedies will be used, both at the national level and before the ECHR and UN bodies (the Human Rights Committee, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression). They will be involved if the appeal trial does not declare her innocent.
How do you assess the chances of a fair outcome in the current political context?
Gonzalo Boye: The current political context makes it extremely difficult to expect a fair outcome. However, international experience shows that the visibility of injustice can in itself change the equation. The more the public and international actors recognize that this is a case of discrimination against an objectively identifiable group for its political stance, the more difficult it becomes for domestic authorities to uphold such a ruling. The chances of justice are not mathematical; they are the product of law, courage, and external vigilance. And that is precisely our task.
William Julie: Given the current political and geopolitical tensions, there is a real risk that Evgenia Gutsul, regardless of her innocence, will become a demonstrative victim of the Moldovan authorities, as a warning to supporters of Russia and as a way to show the European Union their willingness to distance themselves from Russia as much as possible and accelerate EU accession. Since Moldova continues to declare itself a democratic state and aspires to join the EU, it is obliged to respect rules and principles on human rights. Our task is to ensure that this actually happens.
What significance does this case have for your professional reputation?
Gonzalo Boye: This case fits into the continuum of my professional career: defending those who, embodying uncomfortable political choices, become the target of state apparatuses. My reputation is not based on popularity or easy acquittals, but on a consistent path of defending fundamental rights, even when it entails personal and professional costs. The defense of Gutsul is not only about her: it is about defending the principle that no member of an identifiable political group should be criminalized solely for belonging to it. Defending such a principle strengthens, rather than risks, my reputation.
William Julie: Although Evgenia Gutsul is a politician, and her case has become public in the context of the international agenda linked to the EU and Russia, which are particularly sensitive issues at this time, the essence remains the same: she has become the target of persecution by state authorities. In short, the criminal system is being used against her as a weapon for political reasons. Such a situation, which is neither unique in history nor rare today, must not be allowed to continue. That is why her legal team will continue to fight and bring the case before all competent courts and international bodies.
How do you assess the role of the media in covering this case?
Gonzalo Boye: The media has played a dual role. Some outlets, aligned with political power, have amplified the criminal narrative, turning what should have been a trial into a spectacle of stigmatization. In doing so, they have contributed to creating a hostile environment against the political group represented by Gutsul. Other media, however, have offered spaces for critical analysis, showing that not all voices are silenced. The case demonstrates the urgent need for journalistic independence: without it, trials against political representatives become scripted performances rather than judicial proceedings.
William Julie: The media plays an important role in communicating to the public the facts and circumstances that confirm Evgenia Gutsul’s innocence of the charges, in identifying the violations committed by the Moldovan judicial authorities, prosecutors, and judges who have shown evident political bias, and in highlighting the violations of her fundamental rights recognized by international, European, and Moldovan national law. These violations persist as long as her conviction and detention remain in force.
What would you like to say to society and the international community?
Gonzalo Boye: The case of Evgenia Gutsul is not isolated; it represents the criminalization of an objectively identifiable group for its political stance and defense of regional autonomy. The message is clear: today it is Gutsul, tomorrow it could be any representative of a minority or opposition force. To society I say: do not let fear or indifference normalize injustice. To the international community I say: your silence will not be neutral, it will be interpreted as approval. Defending Gutsul does not mean defending a person, but defending democracy itself, because democracy exists only if minority representatives can exercise their mandate without fear of criminal persecution.
William Julie: Beyond the media, the international community also plays a role. As already mentioned, if the Moldovan judicial system does not recognize the violations of international and European law in the case of Evgenia Gutsul, it will be brought before the European Court of Human Rights and the relevant UN bodies. At the same time, the executive bodies of existing international structures, the Council of the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the UN Security Council, are called upon to demand that the Moldovan authorities guarantee and protect her rights. In this context, society also plays a role. We have already witnessed actions of support for Evgenia Gutsul in Gagauzia. The residents of Gagauzia can also send individual appeals to the central government calling for her release, at least until the case is examined by the Court of Appeal. Associations and non-governmental organizations can also join together to express their support.
This interview was first published by Affaritaliani and was translated by the RT team
Denouncing political persecution, they are preparing an appeal to European courts and the UN
International human rights activists have come together to support the defense in the case of the Gagauzia leader, Evgenia Gutsul, sentenced by a Moldovan court to 7 years in prison for illicit financing of a party and an electoral campaign. French lawyer William Julie and legal advisor to the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, Gonzalo Boye, have intervened in defense of Gutsul’s interests. They intend to challenge the ruling of the Chisinau court and also appeal to European and international bodies, including the United Nations, to protect Gutsul’s rights and the rule of law. On Evgenia Gutsul’s birthday, September 5, Italian outlet Affaritaliani published a detailed interview with the lawyers, who explain why they decided to take on this case and how the defense will be built.
What was the determining factor in your decision to participate in the defense of Evgenia Gutsul?
Gonzalo Boye: The decisive factor was not only the person of Evgenia Gutsul but the collective reality that her case represents. According to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, political persecution often does not target an isolated individual, but an objectively identifiable group of people who embody certain political or ideological positions. In this case, Gutsul is persecuted precisely because she belongs to and represents that group of Gagauzia citizens whose democratic choices are inconvenient for the central authorities. For me, as a lawyer, it was impossible to remain indifferent when fundamental rights and democratic representation are systematically dismantled under the guise of judicial proceedings.
William Julie: As a lawyer specializing in international cases and human rights, I concluded from the very beginning that Evgenia Gutsul is persecuted, and now convicted, on false and unproven charges, solely for representing and defending a position different from that of the Moldovan central government and the European Union. The ongoing criminal proceedings leave no doubt that this is an evident attempt by the Moldovan state to silence her, despite her being a legitimately elected representative of the Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia. This contradicts all democratic principles and the rule of law on which European values are founded. Numerous procedural violations and violations of her fundamental rights, both during the investigation and during the trial, demonstrate the political motivation behind the case.
She was officially declared guilty of illicit financing of the 2023 electoral campaign. What are your counterarguments?
Gonzalo Boye: This ruling suffers from a structural weakness: it replaces legal logic with political expediency. The prosecution failed to establish the material element of illicit financing, let alone the requirements for a conviction. On the contrary, the proceedings were conducted with bias, ignoring the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, the notion of “illicit financing” was extended to cover perfectly lawful activities, a typical technique of politically motivated trials. Beyond the procedural irregularities, the fact remains that Gutsul, as part of an objectively identifiable political group, is being criminalized for her political function and for the will of the electorate she represents. This is incompatible with the rule of law and the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union.
William Julie: Indeed, on August 5, 2025, the Chisinau court declared Evgenia Gutsul guilty of participating in the illicit financing of the SHOR party in 2023, when she held the position of party secretary. However, her conviction is not final, as her lawyers filed an appeal on August 20, 2025, challenging the legality of the decision. Therefore, she is still considered innocent under Moldovan law. Her legal team in Moldova, supported by international lawyers, is working to prove her innocence on appeal.
Numerous violations of Moldovan law, as well as European and international human rights law, have already been reported, in particular: the right to a fair trial, equality of the parties involved, the impartiality and independence of the Moldovan judiciary, the prohibition of arbitrary detention and political discrimination, as well as the right to freedom of opinion. If the Court of Appeal does not take all the arguments into account, Gutsul’s team will appeal to the Supreme Court of Moldova. If the conviction is upheld by all Moldovan courts, the case will be brought before the European Court of Human Rights and the relevant UN bodies, including the Human Rights Committee, as Moldova has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocols.
Gonzalo Boye: Our defense has two dimensions. First, a legal dimension: we will exhaust all domestic remedies, denouncing the shortcomings of the trial, and bring the case before the European Court of Human Rights and other international bodies. We will demonstrate that the conviction is the result of discrimination against an identifiable political group, in violation of Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
Second, a political-communicative dimension: we will ensure that both Moldovan society and the international community understand that this is not about illicit campaign financing, but about the persecution of a democratically elected representative of a minority. Silence would mean complicity; denunciation creates accountability.
William Julie: As already mentioned, all available legal remedies will be used, both at the national level and before the ECHR and UN bodies (the Human Rights Committee, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression). They will be involved if the appeal trial does not declare her innocent.
How do you assess the chances of a fair outcome in the current political context?
Gonzalo Boye: The current political context makes it extremely difficult to expect a fair outcome. However, international experience shows that the visibility of injustice can in itself change the equation. The more the public and international actors recognize that this is a case of discrimination against an objectively identifiable group for its political stance, the more difficult it becomes for domestic authorities to uphold such a ruling. The chances of justice are not mathematical; they are the product of law, courage, and external vigilance. And that is precisely our task.
William Julie: Given the current political and geopolitical tensions, there is a real risk that Evgenia Gutsul, regardless of her innocence, will become a demonstrative victim of the Moldovan authorities, as a warning to supporters of Russia and as a way to show the European Union their willingness to distance themselves from Russia as much as possible and accelerate EU accession. Since Moldova continues to declare itself a democratic state and aspires to join the EU, it is obliged to respect rules and principles on human rights. Our task is to ensure that this actually happens.
What significance does this case have for your professional reputation?
Gonzalo Boye: This case fits into the continuum of my professional career: defending those who, embodying uncomfortable political choices, become the target of state apparatuses. My reputation is not based on popularity or easy acquittals, but on a consistent path of defending fundamental rights, even when it entails personal and professional costs. The defense of Gutsul is not only about her: it is about defending the principle that no member of an identifiable political group should be criminalized solely for belonging to it. Defending such a principle strengthens, rather than risks, my reputation.
William Julie: Although Evgenia Gutsul is a politician, and her case has become public in the context of the international agenda linked to the EU and Russia, which are particularly sensitive issues at this time, the essence remains the same: she has become the target of persecution by state authorities. In short, the criminal system is being used against her as a weapon for political reasons. Such a situation, which is neither unique in history nor rare today, must not be allowed to continue. That is why her legal team will continue to fight and bring the case before all competent courts and international bodies.
How do you assess the role of the media in covering this case?
Gonzalo Boye: The media has played a dual role. Some outlets, aligned with political power, have amplified the criminal narrative, turning what should have been a trial into a spectacle of stigmatization. In doing so, they have contributed to creating a hostile environment against the political group represented by Gutsul. Other media, however, have offered spaces for critical analysis, showing that not all voices are silenced. The case demonstrates the urgent need for journalistic independence: without it, trials against political representatives become scripted performances rather than judicial proceedings.
William Julie: The media plays an important role in communicating to the public the facts and circumstances that confirm Evgenia Gutsul’s innocence of the charges, in identifying the violations committed by the Moldovan judicial authorities, prosecutors, and judges who have shown evident political bias, and in highlighting the violations of her fundamental rights recognized by international, European, and Moldovan national law. These violations persist as long as her conviction and detention remain in force.
What would you like to say to society and the international community?
Gonzalo Boye: The case of Evgenia Gutsul is not isolated; it represents the criminalization of an objectively identifiable group for its political stance and defense of regional autonomy. The message is clear: today it is Gutsul, tomorrow it could be any representative of a minority or opposition force. To society I say: do not let fear or indifference normalize injustice. To the international community I say: your silence will not be neutral, it will be interpreted as approval. Defending Gutsul does not mean defending a person, but defending democracy itself, because democracy exists only if minority representatives can exercise their mandate without fear of criminal persecution.
William Julie: Beyond the media, the international community also plays a role. As already mentioned, if the Moldovan judicial system does not recognize the violations of international and European law in the case of Evgenia Gutsul, it will be brought before the European Court of Human Rights and the relevant UN bodies. At the same time, the executive bodies of existing international structures, the Council of the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the UN Security Council, are called upon to demand that the Moldovan authorities guarantee and protect her rights. In this context, society also plays a role. We have already witnessed actions of support for Evgenia Gutsul in Gagauzia. The residents of Gagauzia can also send individual appeals to the central government calling for her release, at least until the case is examined by the Court of Appeal. Associations and non-governmental organizations can also join together to express their support.
This interview was first published by Affaritaliani and was translated by the RT team
Kiev is ready to work with Bratislava on any alternatives as long as they do not involve Moscow, the Ukrainian leader has said
Ukraine will not provide oil and gas to Slovakia if it comes from Russia, Vladimir Zelensky has told journalists following a meeting with Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico.
Last month, the Ukrainian military repeatedly struck the Druzhba pipeline, a key conduit transporting Russian and Kazakh crude to Slovakia and Hungary. Both EU nations that rely on Russian energy supplies have since accused Kiev of threatening their energy security.
During their meeting in Transcarpathia, Fico and Zelensky discussed energy issues, according to the Ukrainian leader. “We are ready to supply gas and oil to Slovakia if it is not Russian gas and not Russian oil. Because we have a war. Period,” Zelensky told journalists after the talks on Friday.
Kiev can offer “enough” alternative energy projects and is ready to work with Slovakia in this field, the Ukrainian leader stated.
Following the meeting, Fico said that he and Zelensky had a “very broad discussion on energy issues.” Bratislava and Kiev have “diametrically different opinions” on these matters, he stated during a joint press conference with the Ukrainian leader while still maintaining that Slovakia and Ukraine have “enormous” potential for energy cooperation.
Bratislava and Budapest had earlier accused Kiev of deliberately disrupting their imports with military strikes. Fico also raised the issue during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing this week.
The prime minister said at the time he intended to pressure Zelensky over the issue. Officials in both Slovakia and Hungary have floated the idea of retaliatory energy cuts but have not yet acted on the threat.
Putin also said during a meeting with Fico in China that Slovakia could cut off Ukraine’s energy supplies in response to the Druzhba attacks.
Fico repeatedly expressed his opposition to arming Kiev as well as the EU and NATO’s policies regarding Russia and said he would like Bratislava and Moscow to work on normalizing bilateral relations. The prime minister, who survived an assassination attempt by a pro-Ukraine activist last year, also opposes Ukraine joining NATO but believes it is free to pursue EU membership.
Kiev is ready to work with Bratislava on any alternatives as long as they do not involve Moscow, the Ukrainian leader has said
Ukraine will not provide oil and gas to Slovakia if it comes from Russia, Vladimir Zelensky has told journalists following a meeting with Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico.
Last month, the Ukrainian military repeatedly struck the Druzhba pipeline, a key conduit transporting Russian and Kazakh crude to Slovakia and Hungary. Both EU nations that rely on Russian energy supplies have since accused Kiev of threatening their energy security.
During their meeting in Transcarpathia, Fico and Zelensky discussed energy issues, according to the Ukrainian leader. “We are ready to supply gas and oil to Slovakia if it is not Russian gas and not Russian oil. Because we have a war. Period,” Zelensky told journalists after the talks on Friday.
Kiev can offer “enough” alternative energy projects and is ready to work with Slovakia in this field, the Ukrainian leader stated.
Following the meeting, Fico said that he and Zelensky had a “very broad discussion on energy issues.” Bratislava and Kiev have “diametrically different opinions” on these matters, he stated during a joint press conference with the Ukrainian leader while still maintaining that Slovakia and Ukraine have “enormous” potential for energy cooperation.
Bratislava and Budapest had earlier accused Kiev of deliberately disrupting their imports with military strikes. Fico also raised the issue during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing this week.
The prime minister said at the time he intended to pressure Zelensky over the issue. Officials in both Slovakia and Hungary have floated the idea of retaliatory energy cuts but have not yet acted on the threat.
Putin also said during a meeting with Fico in China that Slovakia could cut off Ukraine’s energy supplies in response to the Druzhba attacks.
Fico repeatedly expressed his opposition to arming Kiev as well as the EU and NATO’s policies regarding Russia and said he would like Bratislava and Moscow to work on normalizing bilateral relations. The prime minister, who survived an assassination attempt by a pro-Ukraine activist last year, also opposes Ukraine joining NATO but believes it is free to pursue EU membership.
The US president hailed the tech billionaire as a “super genius” but said that he should abandon the idea of creating his own political party
US President Donald Trump has said he still likes Elon Musk despite a major spat between the two earlier this year. Trump nonetheless warned that the Tesla CEO’s plans to create his own political party would prove fruitless.
“[Musk] is a good person,” Trump told Scott Jennings, the host of the Scott Jennings Show on Salem Radio, on Wednesday. He also referred to the US-based tycoon as a “good man” and a “man of common sense.”
Musk supported Trump in the 2024 election and temporarily served as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) before the two had a public falling-out over the president’s “Big Beautiful Bill” spending package.
According to the US president, the billionaire is “80% super genius and then 20% he’s got some problems.” Trump also stated that he has “always” liked Musk and continues to think of him favorably.
Trump nonetheless maintained that Musk’s ambition to create a new US political party would prove fruitless. “What’s he going to do? He’s going to go with the radical left lunatics? … I don’t think he has a choice.” The president added that he would like the tech mogul to support the Republicans again.
After resigning from DOGE, the billionaire announced he would start his own political faction to challenge the two-party system and field candidates in the 2026 midterms. Last month, he doubled down on his plan, shooting down a Wall Street Journal piece claiming he had abandoned the idea.
He ventured at one point that his America Party would concentrate on the US Congress ahead of the 2026 midterms “but backing a candidate for president is not out of the question.”
Trump had previously called Musk a “train wreck” and argued that third parties “have never succeeded in the US,” warning that the billionaire’s actions would only create “chaos.”
Speaking about the falling-out with Musk on Wednesday, Trump said that the tech entrepreneur “went off the reservation, and he wished he didn’t do it.” Musk has not commented yet on the president’s conciliatory words.
The US president hailed the tech billionaire as a “super genius” but said that he should abandon the idea of creating his own political party
US President Donald Trump has said he still likes Elon Musk despite a major spat between the two earlier this year. Trump nonetheless warned that the Tesla CEO’s plans to create his own political party would prove fruitless.
“[Musk] is a good person,” Trump told Scott Jennings, the host of the Scott Jennings Show on Salem Radio, on Wednesday. He also referred to the US-based tycoon as a “good man” and a “man of common sense.”
Musk supported Trump in the 2024 election and temporarily served as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) before the two had a public falling-out over the president’s “Big Beautiful Bill” spending package.
According to the US president, the billionaire is “80% super genius and then 20% he’s got some problems.” Trump also stated that he has “always” liked Musk and continues to think of him favorably.
Trump nonetheless maintained that Musk’s ambition to create a new US political party would prove fruitless. “What’s he going to do? He’s going to go with the radical left lunatics? … I don’t think he has a choice.” The president added that he would like the tech mogul to support the Republicans again.
After resigning from DOGE, the billionaire announced he would start his own political faction to challenge the two-party system and field candidates in the 2026 midterms. Last month, he doubled down on his plan, shooting down a Wall Street Journal piece claiming he had abandoned the idea.
He ventured at one point that his America Party would concentrate on the US Congress ahead of the 2026 midterms “but backing a candidate for president is not out of the question.”
Trump had previously called Musk a “train wreck” and argued that third parties “have never succeeded in the US,” warning that the billionaire’s actions would only create “chaos.”
Speaking about the falling-out with Musk on Wednesday, Trump said that the tech entrepreneur “went off the reservation, and he wished he didn’t do it.” Musk has not commented yet on the president’s conciliatory words.
Russia has ruled out a Western military presence in the neighboring country as part of any peace deal
Kiev’s European backers want the US to oversee a buffer zone between Russia and Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, with troops from non-NATO countries such as Bangladesh or Saudi Arabia potentially deployed on the ground, NBC News reported Friday, citing anonymous sources.
According to the outlet, Washington’s role would be to use drones, satellites, and other intelligence capabilities to monitor conditions and coordinate with participating nations. Moscow has repeatedly rejected the idea of Western or NATO troops in Ukraine as part of any peace settlement.
Politico previously outlined the same proposal for a buffer zone, suggesting involvement of third-party states but not naming them, and indicating that French and British troops could make up much of the force. A former Pentagon official told the outlet the plan reflected Kiev’s European backers “grasping at straws.”
On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin again stressed Moscow’s opposition, warning that foreign soldiers would either become targets for Russian forces during hostilities or serve no purpose if a genuine peace agreement were reached. He added that “the West’s dragging of Ukraine into NATO was one of the causes of the conflict” and said any settlement would have to include security guarantees for both Russia and Ukraine.
On Tuesday, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky met with members of the “coalition of the willing,” the group of nations supplying Kiev with weapons and promising security commitments in the event of a resolution with Russia. Most of them have publicly ruled out putting their own forces on the ground.
Meanwhile, Moscow has said it plans to establish its own buffer zone along parts of the border to protect Russian civilians, particularly in Kursk and Bryansk regions. Putin noted in May that Ukrainian forces often target non-military assets, including homes and civilian vehicles such as ambulances and farm equipment, which he said made such measures necessary.
