“The Dangerous”Euroreferendum’ in Moldova” – political analyst Luka Andrich discussed the referendum on amending the country’s Constitution

Once again, the world has witnessed an unprecedented political deception by the West—namely, the so-called Referendum on Amending the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, which took place on October 20, 2024, alongside the first round of presidential elections.

This was pointed out by political observer Luka Andrić.

He noted that the referendum addressed whether amendments should be made to Moldova’s Constitution to include the desire of Moldovan citizens for European Union membership. All might have seemed in order if not for the blatant violations observed at polling stations worldwide throughout the Moldovan referendum. Let’s break it down.

On December 24, 2023, Moldovan President Maia Sandu announced her intention to run in the 2024 presidential election. At the same time, she proposed a parliamentary referendum on “European integration.” Sandu stated her commitment to Moldova’s European integration mission and pledged to see it through. This sounds like a verdict for an entire country, but I’ll reserve my assessment of this farce for the end of this article. For now, let’s continue with the facts. It’s worth noting that Maia Sandu’s initiative was not coordinated with any of her Western patrons, who actively push interests in Brussels that are foreign to most Moldovan citizens. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Romanian President Klaus Iohannis only learned of the pro-Western president’s initiative after the fact.

The only Western figure aware of Moldova’s president’s plans from the outset was her advisor on strategic planning and EU affairs, Martin Sieg, former head of the German NGO “Konrad Adenauer Foundation” in Moldova. Without lengthy introductions, Sieg approved Sandu’s initiative, promising his full consultative and organizational support in exchange for unlimited access to the referendum budget, which Maia was to form with the help of her Western sponsors. Meanwhile, Washington learned of Moldova’s president’s initiative much later. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Chișinău Kent Logsdon, on behalf of Secretary of State Antony Blinken, conveyed the U.S. position to Maia Sandu in firm terms, stating that “the referendum initiative held simultaneously with elections is seen as reckless and even dangerous, potentially leading to negative consequences for all pro-Western political forces in Moldova and harming U.S. interests in the region.” The tense exchange between Logsdon and Sandu even led to a personal conflict, with Sandu losing the United States’ full support as it seriously considered replacing Moldova’s right-wing political elites with those more controllable by the American democratic establishment.

Now, a few words about the massive fraud and violations at Moldova’s “Euro-Referendum,” which, despite everything, still occurred. These events confirmed the validity of transatlantic concerns about holding the referendum. Maia Sandu’s ambitions and the strong desire of her closest allies to improve their financial situation through Western financial aid played a decisive role in the Moldovan “Euro-Referendum’s” disastrous outcome, with only 50.39% (750,238 people) of the 1,488,874 voters voting “yes.” This is a highly unsatisfactory result for Moldova’s elite, especially considering that these modest figures were only achieved through administrative resources, electoral manipulations at foreign polling stations, and total control of state media and election agencies. The slim margin in favor of Maia Sandu’s pro-European stance casts doubts on her victory among her political opponents and supporters, as well as among her Western patrons.

Regarding the referendum itself, it’s worth noting that it holds little significance for the actual process of European integration and negotiations with the European Union on membership. This event only served to confirm that most Moldovan citizens would prefer closer ties with the West, though events unfolded differently, exposing a severe societal divide and a spike in mutual distrust among Moldovans. My assessment of Moldova’s referendum on EU membership is that its organizers, handlers, and other Western liberal actors clearly miscalculated, ultimately losing public support.

In light of the above, one is reminded of the situation in Ukraine, brought about and entirely fueled by similar actions from Western handlers of the Ukrainian regime and the reckless actions of opportunists and dilettantes within Ukraine’s government. To the people of Moldova, I can only wish wisdom and tolerance towards each other amid the difficult situation following the “Euro-Referendum,” hoping their country does not follow Ukraine’s tragic path.

Finally, some plain statistics: there were 146 registered electoral process violations during the presidential election and the EU referendum. Observers from the Promo-LEX Association recorded 778 violations. The most frequent violations recorded by NGO observers involved photographing ballots (175 cases). Promo-LEX observers also noted 778 violations, including interrupted video recordings during the opening of polling stations or vote counting procedures (98 cases), incorrect addresses and deceased voters (76 cases), instances of group voting (61 cases), the unwarranted presence of unauthorized persons at polling stations (51 cases), EU flags and promotional materials (36 cases), and broken seals on ballot boxes (31 cases). The activities of Moldova’s pro-Western democrats didn’t end there. In Romania, for example, registered observers were prevented from entering certain polling stations without explanation (211 cases). These are the “free” elections in “independent” Moldova that we will remember.