By Marc Champion

While the Russia continues the bloodshed in the Ukraineat the same time she is facing two charges: that she carried out a “special operation” which contributed to the falsification of the election result in Agriculturebut also that he threw lots of money at Moldova in order to “set up” the electoral process for the election of the country’s president. If you’re tempted to exclaim “this is a prank” or “so what,” don’t.

Russia’s attempt to buy votes in Moldova was revealed by two investigative journalists who assumed a pro-Russian role. In this way they managed to videotape accomplices of the Russian effort while bribing voters, while discussing with them what they should do and how.

Authorities also caught “steamers” carrying cash in bags – one containing $1.1 million – and payment cards, which were loaded during trips to Moscow. The government in the capital of Moldova, Chisinauestimates that around 5% of voters were bribed before the first round of the presidential election on October 20 which was held alongside the crucial referendum on the country’s membership of the European Union. It was only a short time before Russia achieved its goal, since the issue of the EU passed by a marginal margin, while the president Maia Sandu was forced to participate in the second round of the electoral process.

The former World Bank official secured her re-election, however, after a concerted two-week campaign that included dismantling
vote-buying networks and warning citizens – including through public messages broadcast every few minutes on trams and buses – that if they were bribed for their vote, they would face criminal prosecution.

The whole affair, which has by no means ended, has nothing to do with joining NATO, which the Moldovan Constitution does not allow. Ukraine faced the same in 2014, even though Putin annexed Crimea and launched a war in the eastern Donbass region after pro-EU protests toppled his man in Kiev. Moldova’s parliamentary elections next year are expected to see more meddling aimed at blocking progress on the country’s EU membership.

The case of Georgia is different, as a pro-Russian government remains in power.

The opposition parties are protesting the victory of the “Georgian Dream”, which is the ruling party, with 53%, a percentage which two of the three companies conducting the exit polls described as statistically impossible.

Regardless of this result and what happened during the count, what the anti-European campaigns in these countries had in common was a relentless bombardment of disinformation, to such an extent that Sandu and the Georgian opposition – if and when elected – they could go to war with Russia. Of course, this is a ridiculous approach, because both Georgians and Moldovans have understood that this was not a warning, but a threat. As in the case of Ukraine, the
decision for war would be made by Moscow, not Chisinau or Tbilisi.

So why should Americans and Europeans care? These are small, poor countries, which would likely prove to be problematic members for the EU. Indeed, in Moldova internal strife is long-standing and, as in many other countries, referendums are often used as tools for citizens to show their dissatisfaction with governments that propose them.

So pay attention to what Putin says.

It’s not often these days that the Russian president takes a real question from a real journalist. So his response to a question from the BBC’s Steve Rosenberg at the recent BRICS summit in the Russian city of Kazan warrants attention.

Rosenberg asked him that if, as Putin claims, he wants to promote security and justice in the world, how can he explain his aggressive actions in Ukraine over the past two and a half years? And how can the death or injury of hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers, drone attacks on Russian soil, or the occupation of a Russian region by foreign troops be considered an improvement in anyone’s security or sovereignty?

Because, Putin replied, “the situation was much worse” before the invasion. This statement was so outrageous that I had to listen to it several times to make sure I hadn’t missed the context in which it was said. While the West appeared friendly, Putin complained, it was constantly trying to humiliate us. If I had not done as I did, “Russia would have ended up being reduced to a second-rate state, whose only function would have been to supply raw materials, resulting in a large loss of our country’s sovereignty. In this situation Russia would not only not be able to develop, it would not even exist.”

Let’s leave aside for now the fact that Putin has failed for years to diversify his economy, because that would mean dismantling the system of crony capitalism he has been building for 20 years.

His claims are a deadly form of sophistry, in which he attempts to give an appearance of credibility by using false facts, such as that he had to invade Ukraine because NATO had already built military bases there (it had not in 2014, nor in 2022, not even now). Sovereignty in no way requires the invasion or destabilization of weaker neighbors.

And unless Moscow succeeds in recolonizing the other former Soviet republics that gained independence in 1991, Russia will, of course, continue to exist.

What would not be there is a concrete vision of Russia’s future as a superpower and empire, just as similar ideas of colonial grandeur died in Austria, Britain, France, Germany and Ottoman Turkey during the 20th century. And better yet… Nor will Putin be able to go down in history as the leader who – like his heroes, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, or even Joseph Stalin – created the idea that they left a Russia greater than they found her.

This is why discussions about whether the West should stop provoking Putin by “letting” Georgia, Moldova or Ukraine be militarily neutral are absurd. These countries will not be neutral because Putin will not allow them to be. If he was interested in the model of Austria (in the EU, but outside of NATO) that is so often cited, he would not have invaded Ukraine when it was already constitutionally neutral, and he would not be meddling in Moldova now.

Putin means it when he says that the Russian superpower he wants to revive cannot exist unless he manages to control the governments and territories around him, the way he controls – for example – Belarus. He also means it when he says that Russia is already at war with the West.

To achieve his goals, Putin does not need to invade a NATO country, but he needs to divide Europe and break up the transatlantic alliance.

As evidenced by Moldova, Georgia and allegations of Russian meddling in other electoral processes in the West, there are other ways for Putin to advance the Zero-Sum Game he is playing that does not stop at the borders of the former Soviet Union. The question is whether we will let it happen.