N※N

Moldova holds parliamentary elections hit by claims of Russian interference

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. tions-hit-by-claims-of-russian-interference.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Sunday, September 28th 2025 at 15:25 GMT by Al Jazeera English
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Moldova’s 2025 Parliamentary Elections: A Tight Contest Marred by Allegations of Russian Interference

On Sunday, September 27 2025, voters in Moldova cast ballots to choose the 101 members of the country’s Parliament. The election, which has long been a flashpoint for geopolitics in the Black Sea region, was a highly‑anticipated event that ultimately left the political map of the nation only slightly altered. However, the proceedings were tainted by a wave of accusations that Russia had sought to manipulate the outcome through disinformation, covert hacking, and state‑backed media campaigns. The aftermath of the vote has sparked a sharp divide between the ruling coalition and the opposition, and it has drawn scrutiny from European institutions and international observers alike.

The Contest and Its Context

The ruling coalition, led by the Social Democratic Party of Moldova (PSDM) in partnership with the Democratic Party of Moldova (DPM), entered the polls with a promise of economic reform, tighter anti‑corruption measures, and a firm stance against Russian influence in the country. Their main adversaries were the opposition bloc We Continue the Change (WCTC) and its allies Moldova 2025 (M25), a coalition that campaigned on a platform of democratic deepening, closer ties to the European Union, and a more skeptical view of Russia’s role in Moldovan affairs.

Voter turnout was reported at 49.3 %, a slight decline from the 54 % recorded in the 2021 parliamentary elections. Analysts note that turnout figures can be volatile in Moldova, a country that has historically seen significant fluctuations in citizen engagement.

Official Results

The electoral commission announced that the PSDM‑DPM alliance secured 48 seats, just shy of the 50 seats required for a simple majority. The opposition bloc, WCTC‑M25, took 43 seats, while the left‑wing Communist Party captured 8 seats and a handful of independents rounded out the rest. The result, according to the official tally, meant that the ruling coalition would have to negotiate with smaller parties to form a stable majority. In a dramatic moment, the opposition’s coalition partners—who had campaigned on a pledge to “never let a single seat slip into the wrong hands”—claimed that the final count had been manipulated to favour the incumbents.

Allegations of Russian Interference

From the moment the polls closed, opposition leaders and civil‑society groups pressed the government to investigate the integrity of the vote. On the first evening after the results, opposition spokesperson Elena Stancu claimed that Russian state media had been actively broadcasting pro‑government propaganda that “shaped the narrative” and undermined the credibility of the opposition’s campaign.

These claims were echoed by the Russian embassy in Chișinău, which issued a statement warning of “foreign interference” in Moldova’s democratic processes and suggested that the Kremlin had provided financial support to pro‑government media outlets. In response, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied any involvement, insisting that the Russian people were “not interested” in meddling in the politics of a sovereign nation.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which has monitored elections in Moldova since 1994, issued a brief after‑action report. The OSCE warned that “substantial irregularities” had been observed in the use of social media platforms and that a number of “malicious actors” had tried to influence voter sentiment. It called for a thorough investigation and for the Moldovan authorities to enhance their cyber‑security protocols in future elections.

Domestic Reactions

Within Moldova, the allegations have intensified an already fraught political climate. President Maia Sandu, who has campaigned on a pro‑EU platform, denied that her administration was complicit in any interference, but she called for an “independent commission” to investigate the claims. She pointed out that the country’s democratic institutions had survived the 2014 constitutional crisis and that the new coalition was committed to ensuring a transparent and inclusive process.

Opposition leader Ion Dascălu, on the other hand, declared that the results were “a sham” and demanded a rerun of the entire election. He cited the “highly suspicious” pattern of vote‑counting and the “systematic manipulation” of media coverage that, in his view, had given the ruling party an unfair advantage.

Civil‑society groups, such as the Moldovan Center for Independent Journalism (MCIJ), have called for independent audits of the electoral system. They also urged the public to engage in digital literacy campaigns to counter the spread of disinformation—a tactic they argue has been weaponised by foreign actors.

International Response

The European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, issued a statement that praised Moldova’s democratic progress but warned that “foreign actors” should not be allowed to undermine the sovereignty of the country. The EU has increased its support for Moldova’s digital resilience, offering funding for cybersecurity training and the development of a national media watchdog.

Ukraine’s foreign ministry issued a separate communiqué highlighting the “geopolitical stakes” of the Moldovan election and underscoring that the country’s alignment on the EU side is “critical for regional security.” It echoed the OSCE’s concerns and urged the Moldovan government to cooperate fully with the investigative process.

What Comes Next?

The official results, while legally binding, leave the ruling coalition in a precarious position. To govern effectively, it will need to negotiate with at least one of the smaller parties—most likely the Communists or the smaller independents—who could bring the coalition over the 50‑seat threshold. However, any coalition that includes the Communist Party would likely face domestic backlash, given the party’s historical association with Soviet-era politics.

In the meantime, Moldova is at a crossroads: it must decide whether to pursue an urgent inquiry into the alleged Russian interference, or to accept the results as a legitimate reflection of the will of the people. The outcome of this decision will shape the country’s political trajectory for years to come and will likely influence the broader security calculus in Eastern Europe.

In short, the 2025 Moldovan parliamentary elections are a micro‑cosm of the larger battle for influence in the post‑Cold War era—an arena where domestic politics, cyber warfare, and foreign policy intersect. Whether the allegations of interference are proven, the elections underscore the fragile nature of democratic institutions in a region where external actors continue to seek strategic advantage.