On November 20, the Valdai Club hosted an expert discussion, titled “A New Dream? Elections in Moldova and Georgia as a Marker on the Road to Sovereignty”. Moderator Andrei Sushentsov noted that the current trend in the former Soviet Union to seek autonomy contradicts the long-standing tendency to compensate for an unwillingness to solve complex domestic political problems by turning to promises of European integration. He suggested discussing the question of whether solving domestic problems is becoming more important for voters than geopolitical orientation.
Constantin Starîş, a Member of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, called the trend toward independence in relation to Moldova more social than political. As a result of the recent elections and referendum, nothing has changed politically, and the government continues to pursue its previous course. At the same time, within the country, the government has effectively failed both in the elections and in the referendum. The reasons for this are related, among other things, to the contradiction between the pro-European rhetoric of the authorities and their “anti-European” practices. At one time, the process of European integration was perceived as a source of modernisation for the country. The “lifting up” of various spheres of life to European standards seemed useful in itself, regardless of the prospects of joining the European Union. The European course did not imply confrontation with Russia – and against this background, it was supported by the majority of Moldovan society. However, over the past four years, it has become the only alternative, and for some time now, even aggressively confrontational, which has caused protests among the population. In addition, it is now firmly linked to the anti-democratic, civil liberties-violating and militaristic policy of the current government.
Natalia Kharitonova, a professor at the Department of International Security and Foreign Policy of Russia, RANEPA, regretfully admitted that Moldova is currently continuing to follow the path of Ukraine. She noted that Maia Sandu was elected for the first time under completely different slogans, but did not fulfil her election promises. According to Kharitonova, Sandu is not an independent figure and is fulfilling the will of Western forces, while ignoring the interests of Moldovans. The curators tried to organise her victory in the first round, using the referendum to increase turnout. However, the opposite happened - the low rating of the president was dragged down further by the referendum. As a result, her team had to resort to large-scale manipulations, for which the West gave carte blanche. This makes the opposition's statements about the illegitimacy of the president not unfounded. Now we should expect purges in the ruling party, the persecution of oppositionists, the further infringement of the rights of residents of Gagauzia and increasing anti-Russian rhetoric.
Archil Sikharulidze, founder of the Sikha Foundation (Georgia), presented his assessment of the situation in Georgia. The victory of Georgian Dream, according to him, was “absolutely predetermined” - it could only lose if all opposition parties united. However, the opposition in Georgia does not have a clear political platform. It does not recognize any institutions, and willingly transfers the legislative process to the streets, which society has long been tired of. Sikharulidze also believes that an important reason for the defeat of the opposition was the lack of fresh faces. The main argument of its leaders remains Western support, but “an attempt to polish old politicians and sell them as new” did not please voters who remember the recent past. Radical pro-European rhetoric also does not appeal to the electorate, which demands balance, stability, economic growth and the absence of war.
Vyacheslav Sutyrin, Director of the Centre for Scientific Diplomacy and Advanced Academic Initiatives at MGIMO, emphasised that if at first glance nothing new happened in Moldova and Georgia – a deep split has long been noticeable within Moldovan society, and the Georgian Dream has won elections in Georgia more than once: in a broader context, what is happening looks like a kind of watershed. For the first time, Georgia has received harsh threats from the West, but the Georgian leadership has not succumbed to them – and has received massive support within the country. “Hopes for a bright future are no longer associated with the Euro-Atlantic perspective,” Sutyrin noted. Public demand in the country no longer includes accelerated Euro-Atlantic integration, which is now associated with crises and upheavals. Probably, the motivation of Moldovan voters is also close to this and is based on the rejection of escalation and a course towards conflict.
Richard Sakwa, Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the University of Kent (UK), believes that the structural transformations in the European Union provide an important key to understanding what is happening. At the conceptual level, the EU used to be a peaceful project, but now it has become, according to the President of the European Commission. Ursula von der Leyen, a geopolitical organisation. In particular, this means subordinating the law to politics. The European Union is becoming a political agent that imposes its goals, acting in the logic of conflict. Moreover, the pace of change is accelerating, and the new European Commission will be even more militant compared to the previous one. As a result, the European Union has partially lost its appeal. Relatively recently, joining it was a utopia that people believed in, but now everything has changed - and in some cases this is even evident in the figures for trade turnover. The paradox is that precisely when international politics and the sovereignty of countries around the world are reaching maturity, the West is trying to return to outdated methods, including pressure and manipulation in elections.
