Moldova: what is the lesson from the close EU vote?

The economic advantages of joining the EU should have been stressed more in the election campaign, political analyst Radu Carp sighs in Contributors:

“The EU or member states like Romania have contributed decisively to key infrastructure projects in the Republic of Moldova, and the country has changed a lot as a result. Apparently, however, little effort has been made to communicate this progress. Moldova faces enormous challenges that may overstretch the country's limited resources: Ukrainian refugees, energy crisis, the loss of traditional markets, emigration. In this context, no government can improve living standards overnight. But in the long term, only participation in the common European market can bring prosperity.”

Maszol, a Hungarian-language website in Romania, says the divide in Moldova is nothing new:

“The linguistic and therefore also ideological divide has been apparent throughout the last three decades. The results of almost all the elections have been close, with the pro-Russian camp and the pro-Western or pro-Romanian camp alternating in power. So why are Romania and Europe reacting with such naive, wide-eyed surprise to the close result of the referendum? ... Whatever the outcome of the presidential election, Moldova's deep division will mean that the country retains its current autonomous, neutral status for a long time to come: it will not become a member of the EU, but nor will it become part of 'Eurasia'.”

The EU needs new strategies, warns Politiken:

“The fact that Russia has put the EU on the defensive in the battle for European influence is partly due to the Putin regime's dirty tricks and frequent deception. But the EU has been incapable of finding effective countermeasures for a battle that is essentially a battle of values: a battle between the rule of law and democratic ideals and the brutal autocracy of the Putin regime. The front in this battle of values stretches from Belarus and Ukraine in the north to Moldova and Georgia in the Caucasus. It is being waged by various means - militarily in Ukraine and as a political hybrid war elsewhere. But the EU is under pressure everywhere.”

The EU must ensure that it is better prepared for the accession of new members, De Volkskrant stresses:

“The accession of new members with little democratic tradition and a large pro-Russian population group is a risk against which the EU must arm itself. Rules need to be changed so that the bloc can take tougher action against member states that move in an authoritarian direction. A repeat of the fiasco with Hungary must be avoided. Nevertheless, in the global battle between democracy and autocracy, the EU has a geopolitical interest in the accession of Moldova and Georgia and, of course, Ukraine.”

The Moldovan online portal agora.md suspects that the narrow outcome of the referendum will prompt the pro-European forces to change course:

“The razor-thin victory is not only due to Russia's interference. It could force the ruling party to readjust its strategies and messages in order to reach voters in the districts that are far away from the capital, as well as the country's Russian-speaking voters. The pro-Europeans will have to acknowledge that there is a significant section of the population that does not share their views and they will have to find ways to achieve a national consensus on the European agenda.”

Deutsche Welle's Romanian Service stresses the need to determine the truth behind the vote-buying allegations:

“The result of the referendum was extremely close and there is huge public pressure. People feel cheated and expect their vote to be defended. They expect the authorities to tell them how the fraud was possible and why it couldn't be prevented. What is the evidence that President Maia Sandu is referring to? What will happen to those who rigged the vote, and also to those who have admitted that their vote was bought? ... Without clear answers to these questions, the result of the presidential run-off could be disastrous.”

Putin's plan has failed, The Times rejoices:

“The result, though wafer thin, ... reaffirmed Moldova's commitment to a democratic future in the face of Russia's revisionist attempts to regain dominance over its 'near abroad'. It was also a waste of an estimated 100 million in bribes spent by Moscow to buy the vote. ... The referendum result will give heart to Ukraine, which itself seeks a future inside the EU. But it is a reminder also of the effectiveness of Mr Putin's election tampering, now a feature of western elections. He came very close to succeeding in Moldova's referendum.”

The referendum result is a slap in the face for Brussels, Trud counters:

“For a poor country on the EU's borders, scraping past a 'no' by just a few hundred votes is a disgrace. In 2003 Hungary voted by a majority of 83 percent in favour of joining, and in Slovakia it was 93 percent. Any result below 60 percent in favour of EU accession is a disaster. Moldova ranks 93rd in the world in terms of per capita gross domestic product, just behind Botswana. Fifteen years ago it would have been unthinkable for Moldovans to be undecided about whether they wanted to join the 'club of the rich'.”

The Aargauer Zeitung pays tribute to Sandu and draws parallels with another country caught between the EU and Russia:

“A showdown is currently taking place in Moldova and Georgia where the outcome is either freedom and democracy with Europe or servitude and autocracy with Russia. ... Fortunately, there is an active, pro-European civil society in both countries. And both Moldova and Georgia have courageous female presidents who are doing their utmost to stay on a pro-Western course - despite the fact that Russia has already stationed thousands of soldiers on their territory. This bravery deserves recognition and respect.”

Göteborgs-Posten casts about for ways in which Russia's democratic neighbours can reduce the latter's influence:

“When corruption, bribery and political violence are the order of the day, Moscow's world view is to some extent legitimised. That is why Moscow likes to target weak and easily infiltrated countries like Moldova. Criminal gangs and corrupt politicians are a godsend for Russian intelligence. For the West, this poses a dilemma. Responding in kind confirms Moscow's narrative and is less acceptable to the domestic audience. On the other hand, simply watching is not a very attractive option either. The only alternative is to take a long-term approach aimed at strengthening independent and liberal institutions.”