Kremlin's quiet strategy: what the elections in Moldova reveal about Ukraine's situation.

According to the Central Electoral Commission of Moldova, after processing 100% of the protocols, the incumbent president Maia Sandu emerged in first place with 42.45% of the votes, while her closest rival, former Attorney General Alexander Stoianoglo, garnered just under 26%. The third position was taken by the leader of the political force "Our Party," Renato Usaty, with 13.70%, followed by the former head of Gagauzia, Irina Vlah, with 5.4%. In fifth place was former prosecutor Victoria Furtună with 4.5%, and in sixth and seventh were former prime ministers Vasily Tarlev with 3.22% and Ion Chicu with 2.9%. The remaining candidates received less than 1%.

Meanwhile, the 15-point lead over her competitor does not guarantee Maia Sandu an easy path in the second round of elections, scheduled by the CEC for November 3, experts believe. The key reason often cited in this context is the reputational blow to Sandu related to the twists and turns surrounding the government-initiated referendum on European integration, during which voters were asked: "Do you support amending the Constitution to enable the Republic of Moldova to join the European Union?"

Due to the significantly lower activity in the referendum compared to the presidential elections, as of 3 PM on Sunday, October 20, less than one-third of voters participated, making it impossible to consider it valid, unlike the presidential elections. This discrepancy was linked to the Socialist Party and several other opposition forces, which, it should be noted, directly or indirectly align with the Kremlin, calling on their voters to boycott the plebiscite. Only later in the evening did the CEC announce that the referendum on euro-integration had taken place. However, this was not the end of the story. The Central Electoral Commission of Moldova initially had to acknowledge that a majority of voters participating in the referendum opposed amending the Constitution to facilitate the country's entry into the EU. By eight in the morning on Monday, data from the CEC indicated that after processing 91.08% of the protocols, 53.54% of citizens voted against euro-integration, while 46.46% supported it. However, after processing 99.5% of the protocols, supporters of Moldova's EU accession unexpectedly surged ahead by symbolic tenths of a percent (50.46% - in favor, 49.54% - against). Influential Western media report that the diaspora played a decisive role here. According to official data, EU accession was supported in Chișinău and eight districts. However, another 24 districts, as well as the Gagauz autonomy, the municipality of Bălți, and voters from the unrecognized Transnistria expressed opposition.

Commenting on the course and outcome of the euro-referendum, President Maia Sandu stated: "Moldova has faced an unprecedented attack on freedom and democracy, manifesting as an external conspiracy. Criminal groups, working together with foreign forces hostile to our national interests, have attacked our country with tens of millions of euros, lies, and propaganda, using the most disgraceful means to keep our citizens and our country trapped in uncertainty and instability." According to Ms. Sandu, law enforcement has "clear evidence that these criminal groups sought to buy 300,000 votes, committing unprecedented-scale fraud." "Their goal was to undermine the democratic process. Their intent was to sow fear and panic in society. We will not retreat from defending democracy and freedom," she emphasized.

Shortly after Maia Sandu's statement, the EU issued its first reaction, accusing Putin's Russia. "We closely monitored the voting process in the Moldovan presidential elections and the referendum. This is an important partner of the European Union," stated EU foreign policy spokesperson Peter Stano at a briefing in Brussels. He noted that the elections in Moldova "were conducted under unprecedented pressure" and "intimidation from Russia and its proxies."

The Kremlin categorically rejected the version of a "Russian trace" and drew attention to "numerous questions arising regarding the vote count." In particular, Putin's spokesperson Peskov urged Chișinău to provide evidence of foreign interference in the elections through certain criminal groups: "If she claims that she lost votes due to some criminal groups, then she should present evidence, and it would probably be good for Ms. Sandu to explain the number of votes that disagree with her line. Are they also criminal groups? Or does she mean that Moldovan citizens who do not support her are associated with criminal groups?" According to the "voice" of the Kremlin, "the first thing we see is, of course, such, shall we say, mechanically difficult-to-explain rates of growth of votes for Sandu and in favor of those participants in the referendum who advocate for orientation towards the EU." "In fact, any observer with a basic understanding of political processes can record these anomalies," summarized Putin's press secretary.

The recently held elections and referendum in neighboring Moldova are actively being discussed in the domestic political and expert community.

"The results of the elections in Moldova pose a critical threat to our national security. In a country that is supposed to start negotiations with the EU in a few months, there are not enough votes to enshrine the European choice without the votes of the diaspora. The President of Moldova speaks of large-scale violations, which means she does not control the situation as she should. If this negative spiral is not stopped, Russia will lead Moldova to a civil conflict. We urgently need a common strategy with the EU, and importantly, what we must do together to stop the Russian foothold in Moldova, no matter the cost. Moldova can become Western or follow the path of the Western Balkans and become a Russian enclave in our rear. There are no "buts" or "ors" here," emphasizes former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin.

In turn, political scientist Vadim Denisenko emphasizes: "We should not be concerned about the outcome of the referendum in Moldova at all. For us, the key issue is Sandu's victory in the second round. If we briefly discuss the reasons for what happened in Moldova, several key reasons can be identified.

The first reason is the four identities of Moldova (excluding Transnistria): Romanian (about 40%, which Sandu has accumulated), Moldovan (up to 30%, which is Sandu's main potential), Gagauz, and Soviet (all the rest) identities. The second reason is Euroskepticism, considering the fear of war and weak support for Ukraine. Incidentally, this same skepticism is also growing in Ukraine. The third reason is electoral fraud and bribery of voters, primarily pensioners.

According to the expert, for Ukraine, the main focus now is the second round. "Russia will throw all the world's money at this, and for them, there are two positive outcomes: Sandu's defeat, creating a revolutionary situation, and disorder in Chișinău. Even under such conditions, in the medium term, they will not be able to do anything from the side of Transnistria. However, the information noise may begin to rise sharply. It is possible that this direction of information warfare will noticeably escalate," concludes Vadim Denisenko. At the same time, his colleague in the expert community, Viktor Nebozhenko, analyzing the electoral twists in neighboring Moldova, draws a key conclusion: "Now we know what methods Putin's Russia will use to 'conduct' elections in a war-torn Ukraine, 'after' the war."

Meanwhile, Ukraine is being ravaged in full swing even during the war, and not always by Putin's "liberators." On Tuesday, October 22, following a series of outrageous corruption scandals, President Zelensky enacted a decision by the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) mandating that all Medical and Social Expert Commissions (MSEC), which establish disability, must be dissolved by the end of the current year. The corresponding decree was published on the president's official website. It is no secret that MSEC had effectively become an alternative to the Territorial Recruitment Centers (TCC), thriving as a corrupt branch for avoiding mobilization. Recruiters have no influence over MSEC decisions regarding disability, allowing so-called draft dodgers to bribe MSEC instead of recruitment offices, which are under the Ministry of Health, not the Ministry of Defense.

Separately, during yesterday's Security Council meeting, the issue of the scandal involving mass disability registrations for prosecutors in the Khmelnytskyi region was addressed. In addition to many of these individuals evading mobilization through such "fake" means, they also received pensions amounting to millions of hryvnias for disability from the state, as most of them had registered their disability status long before the full-scale invasion. For example, the head of the Khmelnytskyi regional prosecutor's office, Alexey Oleynik, who found himself at the center of the disability scandal, had been receiving a pension since 2017, and its amount grew sevenfold over seven years, totaling 1.3 million hryvnias.

Commenting on the prosecutor-disability scandal, President Zelensky wrote on social media that political responsibility should be borne personally by the Attorney General. The signal from Bankova was immediately picked up by the agency, and Attorney General Kostin resigned. "The President of Ukraine held a meeting of the NSDC regarding the obviously immoral situation with the fake disabilities of officials of state bodies. Many disgraceful facts of abuses have been established in the system of Ukraine's prosecutor's offices," wrote the Attorney General. He added that he believes the president's position is