Welcome to the thirteenth iteration of our bulletin! We aim to provide special insights into how disinformation works and spreads in Moldova in the weeks leading up to the presidential elections and the EU accession referendum. At Funky Citizens,  we have been following trends and narratives linked to disinformation for the last few years, and we understand how intense this crucial period is. We would like to thank our colleagues from watchdog.md and stopfals.md for their contributions to this bulletin. Their materials and findings, quoted directly or indirectly, form the foundation of the current content.

We ended yesterday’s issue mentioning that Alexandr Stoianoglo declined a scheduled debate with incumbent President Maia Sandu on the day it was supposed to take place. The debate was organized by the public television station Moldova 1 and Radio Moldova. Stoianoglo’s team justified the refusal by stating their decision not to participate in debates hosted by media outlets they consider biased towards the current government. Nonetheless, experts pointed out that Sandu was the clear winner of the first debate, thus this choice might have more to do with the strategic decision by Stioanoglo’s staff not to expose his vulnerabilities once more.

After Sunday’s debate, President Maia Sandu released a video message addressed to Alexandr Stoianoglo. In the video, she thanked him for participating in the debate at the Palace of the Republic and encouraged him to attend the upcoming debates on the public television channel Moldova 1 on October 28th. Sandu spoke in Russian, acknowledging Stoianoglo’s native language. “Please understand that any division, based on language, ethnicity, geography, hurts us all. It makes us weaker in the face of risks to our country. […] I have respected you all these 4 years, I have taken care of the safety of all citizens and I will continue to do so. Let’s stand together to protect our country and our future”, the current president from Chisinau stated.

Teleradio-Moldova organized an electoral debate last evening, but with Stoanoglo’s refusal to participate, it was a discussion between Maia Sandu and the journalists present. President Sandu emphasized the critical choice facing Moldovan voters in the upcoming election, framing it as a decision between allowing corrupt individuals to regain power and continuing the country’s progress towards European Union integration. She discussed the challenges in judicial reform, noting resistance within the system and collaboration between some justice members and criminal groups. Sandu emphasized the need for a different approach to accelerate reforms and protect the electoral process. She also highlighted plans to expedite the creation of an Anti-Corruption Court, delayed by the incomplete composition of the Superior Council of Magistrates (CSM), and called on Parliament to approve necessary legislation promptly. Additionally, Sandu announced upcoming government reshuffles in response to citizens’ protest votes, aiming to improve government performance and meet public expectations. Addressing a recent debate, she pointed out the failure of Stoianoglo to effectively combat corruption, particularly in a case involving a businessman attempting to bribe judges to control two banks.

Lacking a part two, the debate on Sunday between Maia Sandu and Alexandr Stoianoglo still makes waves; experts have highlighted their contrasting styles and performances. Sandu, the incumbent president, was confident and articulate, switching between Romanian and Russian to emphasize her achievements and vision for Moldova’s future, focusing on European integration and minority rights. Stoianoglo struggled with his delivery, often reading from notes and appearing emotional. His arguments, which included claims about regional funding disparities and accusations against Sandu, were regarded as populist and sometimes inaccurate. His performance was perceived as weak, despite attempts to appeal to both pro-Russian and centrist voters.

Experts noted that while the debate’s timing and format might limit its impact, it was crucial for undecided voters. Andrei Curăraru from WatchDog.md observed that Stoianoglo was overwhelmed by emotions, with a mechanical delivery that made him appear almost robotic. He attempted to appeal to centrist voters but lacked clarity on European integration. On the other hand, Sandu’s extensive political experience and native Romanian skills gave her an advantage.

An analysis by Newsmaker.md of the debate between Maia Sandu and Alexandr Stoianoglo revealed the most frequently used words by each candidate:

• For Maia Sandu, the top words included “citizens,” “Moldova,” and “people,” reflecting her focus on national identity and the well-being of the populace.

• Alexandr Stoianoglo’s most used words were “Moldova,” “people,” and “question,” indicating his strategy of addressing immediate concerns and posing direct questions to his opponent.

• The analysis also noted that Alexandr Stoianoglo used the term “European” more frequently than Maia Sandu.

• While the debates were primarily conducted in Romanian, both candidates also spoke in Russian. Stoianoglo delivered 12.6% of his sentences in Russian, compared to Sandu’s 2.2%. In total, Sandu made five statements in Russian, whereas Stoianoglo made twenty-three.

In the lead-up to the presidential elections and referendum, at least 138,000 Moldovans received funds from a $39 million scheme orchestrated by Russian special services. Over 60% of these transfers occurred in October. The police have identified all account holders and urged them to come forward to avoid penalties, which could include fines of 38,000 lei (about 2,000 euros). So far, 500 Moldovans have been sanctioned, and the National Anti-Corruption Center has issued fines totaling one million lei. This is what an investigation by TV8 shows.  The scheme involved using the Russian bank Promsveazybank, with funds transferred through mobile apps. The police and prosecutors have documented over 1.4 million transactions and identified 138,448 users. The scheme involved various categories of people, including 130 high-level territorial leaders, 1,927 sector leaders at polling stations, over 50,000 activists, and more than 80,000 ordinary citizens who received between 800 and 1,500 lei. Some individuals have come forward to report their involvement, while others, including priests, have been implicated in withdrawing funds from Transnistria.

The General Prosecutor’s Office in Moldova is struggling to combat schemes designed to destabilize the country and corrupt voters, orchestrated by Russian special services. Despite the challenges, the Prosecutor General’s team has conducted numerous searches, detained individuals, and seized assets. Prosecutor General Ion Munteanu highlighted the need for more legal tools and specialized personnel to effectively tackle corruption. He also criticized the ongoing, often spontaneous reforms that hinder the system’s efficiency. The Supreme Council of Magistracy acknowledged delays in proceedings due to a shortage of judges.

Andrei Curăraru, a public policy expert from WatchDog.md, believes that Russia’s spending to regain influence in Moldova is comparable to its daily war expenses in Ukraine. He explains that Russia’s current strategy involves either reclaiming territories or enforcing strict control, similar to its actions in Georgia. Moldova’s situation is influenced by the Transnistria conflict and the support given to the regime there, including free gas. Over the years, Russia’s methods have evolved, now focusing heavily on corruption. This corruption operates like a pyramid scheme, with individuals being drawn in and bound by bribery. Ilan Sor is highlighted as a key figure in this corrupt system. Russia is prepared to escalate its efforts, especially in upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections, sparing no expense to maintain its influence. Curăraru emphasizes the need for open discussion and action to counter these tactics, as Moldova remains a prime target for Russia’s influence.

With just five more days until the second round of the presidential elections, some of the former candidates have publicly expressed their options:

• Renato Usatîi, who finished third in the first round of Moldova’s presidential elections, announced that he will not support any candidate in the second round. He encouraged citizens to make their own decisions, expressing confidence that the candidates will manage without his endorsement. Usatîi emphasized personal responsibility in voting and criticized both Maia Sandu and Alexandr Stoianoglo, stating that neither deserves his support. He also mentioned that he will continue to fight for Moldova and its citizens in future elections. Moreover, Usatîi cited pressure from Moscow for his withdrawal in favour of Stoianoglo, including being threatened with fabricated criminal cases. He mentioned Stoianoglo being supported by corrupt politicians abroad and in Moldova, while he likened Maia Sandu to Gorbachev, “lauded abroad but hated back home”.

• Tudor Ulianovschi, a former independent presidential candidate, emphasized the need for a real alternative in Moldova’s political landscape. In a Facebook post, he expressed that many citizens feel abandoned and are tired of choosing the “lesser evil”. Ulianovschi called for a new, pro-European political force and a leader capable of uniting the country rather than dividing it. He did not endorse any candidate for the second round of the presidential elections but highlighted the importance of a leader who can bring people together.

• Irina Vlah, the former governor of Gagauzia, urged citizens to vote massively on November 3rd to “save the country”. She emphasized the deteriorating state of the national economy, the departure of investors, the destruction of justice, and the violation of human rights. Vlah called for voting against Maia Sandu, arguing that her continued presidency would lead to the country’s downfall.

Ion Tăbârță, a political commentator, believes that the decisive battle in the second round of the presidential elections will be fought over the undecided voters. He suggests that these voters will likely make their decision based on the geopolitical preferences of the candidates, thus making these ambiguous declarations even more poignant.

Valeriu Pașa, president of the “Watchdog.md” community, views the recent referendum on Moldova’s EU membership as a significant victory, despite the influence of anti-EU propaganda and electoral corruption by Russia. He believes that the number of Moldovans supporting EU integration is higher than those who voted “Yes” in the referendum, as many were misled by the confusing ballot question. Pașa highlights that while the referendum’s legal outcome is a win, the results were heavily skewed by visible fraud. He points out that voters paid to vote “No” in the referendum were also bribed to support pro-Russian presidential candidates, showcasing the vulnerability of Moldova’s democracy. Pașa sees the referendum result as a message that pro-European voter mobilization can overcome efforts to buy votes, a sentiment echoed by EU and US leaders who respect the majority’s decision. He draws a parallel to France’s narrow referendum win in 1992 that led to the creation of the European Union, emphasizing that even slim majorities can have significant impacts.

This newsletter is part of our ongoing work with the Bulgarian-Romanian Observatory of Digital Media, member of EDMO.