This question is rhetorical, of course, because such an event was never scheduled. The properly formulated question is why a classical colour revolution isn’t now in progress in Moldova, after the fraudulent elections that recently took place in that country? The blatantly unfair “electoral” process which resulted in Maia Sandu’s alleged victory, critical to the collective West as its adventure in Ukraine turns into a debacle, meets all the criteria that trigger a “spontaneous” colour revolution of the sort to which we have grown painfully accustomed.
But instead of facing civil turbulence for the dishonestly conducted 3 November Presidential election, on the contrary, fervent NATO and EU advocate and World Economic Forum Young Leader Sandu has been effusively praised and warmly congratulated on her bogus triumph.
At the same time, a concerted attempt to provoke regime change using classical colour revolution instruments is being made in Georgia.
So far, it has fizzled out not for lack of trying but because of the political maturity shown by the Georgian people, who refused to take the bait. The pretext was the allegedly disputed parliamentary election in Georgia, the numerical result of which favouring the governing party (about 54%) and the opposition (45%) roughly corresponds to the contrastingly acceptable outcome in Moldova. What was the crucial difference? It was chiefly the geopolitical orientation of the respective governments that in those elections were up for public approval and the fact that the “non-governmental organisations” which on command trigger regime change agitation are under the control of collective West intelligence agencies. Those agencies, in turn, and the governments whose instructions they execute, operate not with a factual but a utilitarian concept of what is a fair and free election. If as in Moldova the outcome serves collective West’s goals the election is fair; if as in Georgia it hinders them, it is fraudulent. Things are quiet in Moldova because local hirelings there were ordered not to stir up public discontent whilst in Georgia they were issued the opposite directive.
The other noteworthy difference is that the egregious irregularities of the electoral process in Moldova are amply documented whilst allegations of similar misconduct in Georgia remain unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. But in the rules based order that hardly matters.
The completely utilitarian nature of the assessments, by Western political institutions and media at least, of whether an election was legitimate or not, is demonstrated by the fact that the large segment of the Moldavian electorate residing in Russia, estimated to number about half a million, were effectively disenfranchised from the voting process. That was accomplished by drastically reducing to just a handful the number of Moldovan polling stations on Russian territory and making available only 10,000 paper ballots (curiously, it did not occur to anyone in Kishinev to use Dominion voting machines instead) to those Moldovan citizens residing in Russia who managed to overcome all obstacles in order to exercise their right to vote.
On the other hand, to stress the Moldovan regime’s strict adherence to “European values”, no hindrances were placed in the way of the Moldovan diaspora in the European Union to take part in presidential elections in the country to which they may have a connection but where they do not reside. The Moldovan regime’s calculus was that the bulk of the Moldovans living and employed in the EU have a private interest to not disrupt Moldova’s European Union accession process, however remote the prospects, because their legal residence in Europe and consequently the jobs they hold there enabling them to send remittances to relatives in impoverished Moldova depend on it. Unlike Moldovans residing in Russia, that segment of the Moldovan diaspora are highly motivated out of economic self-interest to vote for Maia Sandu and her pro-European policies. In the referendum to enshrine the goal of EU accession within the Moldovan Constitution, held under identically unequal conditions and simultaneously with the first round of presidential elections on 20 October, it was the vote of the Moldovan diaspora residing in the EU which enabled the proposed measure to prevail, albeit with a razor-thin margin of a fraction of a single percentage point.
In both instances, the majority of the people actually living in Moldova, who were to be most directly affected by the outcome of the voting, did not support either their government’s pro-European Union policy or the election of Western puppet Maia Sandu to the presidency of their country. Results favourable to Western interests were achieved by resorting to corrupt practices and flagrant electoral engineering.
Understandably therefore a colour revolution was not engendered in the aftermath of the recent elections in Moldova, although all the objective conditions from Gene Sharp’s playbook for launching one have been fulfilled. It suffices to recall in this regard one of the fundamental triggers which in the past have led to the overthrow of numerous legitimate governments that were indisposed to bow to the political dictates laid down by arrogant Western hegemons.
Sharp’s doctrine prescribes that a close election result ideally facilitates the task of professionally organised and amply financed colour revolutionaries who are in need of a plausible pretext to mobilise and direct the clueless masses. That is because it lends credibility to the allegation of malfeasance levelled against the targeted “regime” and fuels a sense of grievance among the populace, who supposedly were cheated out of effectively asserting their political will.
Such malfeasance is precisely what happened in Moldova but did not occur in Georgia. But Moldova is covered by a tight and, unlike in Georgia, unsupervised network of Western financed “NGOs,” which by default exercise a monopoly on disinformation and “civil society” activities. Consequently, in Moldova there is no movement to denounce flagrant systemic fraud or to challenge the legitimacy of the regime of foreign vassals who base their rule on the simulacrum of authority derived from that fraud. That is because, as we explained, the criteria that are always applied are unabashedly utilitarian; “constructive” fraud as in Moldova, which serves the interests of the puppeteers, is always proper and irreproachable.
By contrast, honest elections, as in Georgia, which go against the grain are always and irrespective of the factual matrix denounced as fraudulent.
Whoever is endowed with even a modest capacity for political reasoning will easily recognise the crooked game and the malignant rules by which it is being played.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books!
Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: President Maia Sandu delivering a speech on May 29, 2023. Photo: Moldovan Presidential Administration Facebook
Can you help us keep up the work we do? If you have the means to make a small or large donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture will be much appreciated.
Rethinking Srebrenica
By Stephen Karganovic
Rethinking Srebrenica examines the forensic evidence of the alleged Srebrenica “massacre” possessed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. Even though the ICTY created more than 3,500 autopsy reports, many of these autopsy reports were based on bone fragments, which do not represent complete bodies. An examination of the matching femur bones found reveals that there were only about 1,900 complete bodies that were exhumed. Of these, some 1,500 autopsy reports indicated a cause of death consistent with battlefield casualties. Only about 400 autopsy reports indicated execution as a cause of death, as revealed by ligatures and blindfolds. This forensic evidence does not warrant the conclusion of a genocide having taken place.
Karganovic examines the events that took place in Srebrenica in July 1995 in a wholistic manner instead of restricting it to a three-day event. The ten chapters cover:
1) Srebrenica: A Critical Overview;
2) Demilitarization of the UN Safe Zone of Srebrenica;
3) Genocide or Blowback?;
4) General Presentation and Interpretation of Srebrenica Forensic Data (Pattern of Injury Breakdown);
5) An Analysis of the Srebrenica Forensic Reports Prepared by the ICTY Prosecution Experts;
6) An Analysis of Muslim Column Losses Attributable to Minefields, Combat Activity, and Other Causes;
7) The Genocide Issue: Was there a Demonstrable Intent to Exterminate All Muslims?;
8) ICTY Radio Intercept Evidence;
9) The Balance Sheet; and
10) Srebrenica: Uses of the Narrative.
- ASIN: B0992RRJRK
- Publisher: Unwritten History, Inc.; 2 edition (July 8 2021)
- Language: English
