The model of operation, the manner of expressing dissatisfaction, identical symbols and slogans, and coordinated actions, typically backed by a network of Western NGOs, point to an internal connection between the protests in Serbia, Abkhazia, Georgia, and Moldova. The similarity negates coincidence. Regardless of whether the pretext is corruption, a lack of democracy, environmental issues, or the economic situation, past experience has shown that protests are never a spontaneous expression of dissatisfaction. Instead, they represent a clearly defined plan underpinned by a calculated goal: destabilizing the country to the extent necessary to achieve Western interests.
MOLDOVA – ALTERED RESULTS
The presidential elections in Moldova, held in early November, were based on a previously organized referendum on constitutional changes that would enable the country’s membership in the European Union. The election results, which initially reflected the people’s will to remove the pro-European and corrupt regime from power, were overturned by votes from the European diaspora. Maia Sandu secured another term, and her Western mentors forcibly kept Moldova on the European path. Instead of the initial 52% for Stoyanoglo and 48% for Sandu, the Moldovan people were brutally confronted with the final and unexpected results at the last moment: Sandu led with 55% against Stoyanoglo’s 45%. Comments pointed out that Maia Sandu is unequivocally the president of the Moldovan diaspora, while the presidential legitimacy within Moldova itself belongs solely to Stoyanoglo.
“MINED” BRIDGE – TRANSDNIESTRIANS BLOCKED
The diaspora that supposedly decided the election results originates from EU countries. In Russia, where more than half a million Moldovans reside, only two polling stations were opened, both in Moscow, with just 10,000 ballots provided.
In contrast, hundreds of polling stations were opened across Europe, where 240,000 citizens from the Moldovan diaspora voted in the first round, and that number increased to an astonishing 330,000 in the second round. Evidence of falsification and election fraud was not subject to investigation. In an attempt to prevent Moldova from veering off its European course, Moldovan authorities refused to open polling stations in Transnistria, prompting Transdniestrians to travel to Moldova on the second day of elections to exercise their voting rights. However, not all succeeded, as the bridge between the towns of Rezina and Ribnita was blocked at one point under the pretext that it was mined.
Although the opposition announced protests, the situation calmed down. Nevertheless, Maia Sandu’s regime, which has plunged Moldovans below the poverty line, remains in power. Everything else, including the election and referendum results, is now just history.
A DREAM COME TRUE FOR GEORGIA
The October elections in Georgia, where the Georgian Dream party emerged victorious, demonstrated that the foreign agents law introduced by the ruling party enjoys full public support. Recall that following the passage of this law, NGO activists, pro-Western politicians, and foreign mercenaries spent months attempting to discredit the law and its authors, both on the streets and through political pressure and blackmail from the EU. The electoral victory of the Georgian Dream founder and one of the law’s ideologues dealt a serious blow to Euro-fanatics and the European community, which once saw strategic potential in Georgia.
Meanwhile, the European Commission has frozen Georgia’s EU membership process, citing this law and other alleged “authoritarian practices” of the ruling party. Although the ruling party insists that Georgia remains committed to the European path, it is evident that this law is being used as a pretext for additional pressure on the Georgian government. Interestingly, while accusing Georgia of lacking democracy and being authoritarian, the West tolerates similar laws in its own countries.
THE WEST’S FAILED PLANS
In the United States, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) has been in place since 1938 and is one of the strictest mechanisms for controlling foreign influence. Many European countries also have similar laws regulating organizations with foreign funding. However, when a similar law is adopted in Georgia, it becomes a “blow to democracy” and a “sign of authoritarian tendencies.” The opposition did not recognize the election results, and President Salome Zurabishvili supported the opposition, calling on citizens to protest what she described as “total falsification” and “complete theft” of votes. Protests over alleged election fraud were organized even before the elections, clearly intending to embed the idea of fraud among the populace.
Despite all attempts, the election commission confirmed the results, and pro-Western activists were faced with a choice: either retreat to avoid sanctions or provoke a civil war, hoping that Russia might intervene. Considering that the regimes of Saakashvili and later Salome Zurabishvili brought no economic progress to Georgia—only further debt—recent surveys show that Georgians see their future not in the EU but among BRICS nations.
ABKHAZIA – A CROSSROADS BETWEEN WORLDS
Between Sochi and Georgia lies Abkhazia, a former Soviet republic partially recognized as independent, though Georgia still considers it an inseparable part of its territory. Despite being a small coastal state with significant economic challenges, high crime rates, and weak institutions incapable of implementing legal reforms, Abkhazia’s geopolitical position makes it an important junction in the complex relations between East and West.
Under strong Russian influence and financially reliant on Moscow, and given its shared Orthodox Christian identity with Georgia and Armenia (unlike much of the Caucasus where Islam plays a major cultural and political role), Abkhazia seemed protected from Western encroachments. Yet, the West has still managed to find a path to influence certain politicians. This is evidenced by the reactions to an economic agreement signed between the Abkhazian government and Russia on October 30, allowing Russian companies to undertake investment projects in the region. On November 11, the Abkhazian Parliament and the President adopted a constitutional law titled “On Regulating the Legal Status of Multifunctional Complexes.” According to the law, these complexes include non-residential buildings and spaces for business, retail, sports, exhibitions, and more, excluding apartments and aparthotels.
STRANGE PROTESTS
Protests soon erupted. Georgian media reported that people from “across the country” gathered at the protest site, celebrating as demonstrators “broke down the gate” of the State Security Service building. However, their actions were halted by security forces. During the protests, Aslan Barcits, the leader of the opposition National Unity Forum of Abkhazia and a former Vice President, called on residents to join the protests, claiming that Russian investments would threaten Abkhazia’s sovereignty.
“We will lose our country. Let us defend our homeland as we did during the war. We won’t have another chance,” he declared.
Russian analyst Konstantin Dvinsky noted that the protests in Abkhazia appeared not only strange but entirely senseless.
“Citizens of a country entirely dependent on Russian money are protesting against an agreement that would allow that money to be invested legally. This seems bizarre because, aside from Russia, few are willing to invest legally in Abkhazia. Nor are there other guarantors of Abkhazia’s very existence.”
EXPLOITING INSTABILITY
Dvinsky called the protests anti-Russian but didn’t rule out Western involvement.
“In one way or another, this is a unique case of a formally anti-Russian protest under the slogan ‘Russia Russia!’ that the West cannot officially support since neither the EU nor the US recognizes Abkhazia. However, it’s likely that Western agents are active there, as any source of instability near Russia is an opportunity to be exploited, if not immediately, then in the future.” The opposition’s occupation of the Parliament and Presidential Administration buildings marked an unprecedented escalation, highlighting the depth of the political crisis and suggesting that the actions were planned and organized. This indicates that the opposition has a strong organizational structure and some support among the public and security forces.
Due to public pressure, arrested activists were released, but the country’s unrest continues, even after President Aslan Bzhania announced the withdrawal of the agreement with Russia, his resignation, and the scheduling of early elections.
Abkhazian Minister of Economy Kristina Ozga had earlier stated that Russian investments were intended to stabilize the country’s economy. This remains true, as Abkhazia is drowning in debt and an economic crisis with no apparent way out—unless the opposition knows something different.
WHAT DOES THE ALTERNATIVE LOOK LIKE?
Interestingly, protesters and the opposition claim to fight for sovereignty and economic independence. However, official data shows that half of Abkhazia’s budget is funded by the Russian Federation, most of its infrastructure is also financed by Russia, which is also its primary trading partner. So, what is the real reason for the protests, especially as the agreement has likely been canceled, the activists have been released, and the opposition has raised the stakes overnight by demanding the President’s resignation? Ultimately, Abkhazia exists solely thanks to Russia’s goodwill.
In Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, and finally Ukraine, Western advisers and interest groups portray Russia as the root cause of all problems—economic, political, and social—while recommending the EU and NATO as alternatives. However, this process has not brought economic prosperity or stability; instead, it has resulted in debt, political instability, dependence on the West, and, ultimately, territorial losses.
A striking example is Ukraine—a country that, by choosing the Western path, entered into conflict with Russia, drove its economy to collapse, and, despite enormous human losses and refugees, lost parts of its territory.
A “RUSSOPHOBIA” CONSULTANT
Serbia, surrounded by NATO countries, has been a favorite destination for all kinds of brokers over the decades, aiming to show its people the supposed dangers of Russian influence. Despite the lack of significant Russian influence, years of relentless anti-Russian propaganda have fostered a strong animosity toward Russia among some Serbs. Pro-Western media, politicians, and activists consistently claim that Russia is the only obstacle to Serbia’s prosperous integration into the European world. The hostility has grown to such proportions that USAID has announced a tender for a consultant tasked with designing a media strategy to “reduce Russian influence” in Serbia over the next 11 months.
The consultant will oversee the management of USAID’s “Mission in Serbia” project, spanning 20 areas and involving “new investments” of $10 million, while total investments within the project are estimated at $141 million.
Unfortunately, in Serbia, Russia exists only in the hearts of its people and in one remaining EU demand that Serbia has yet to fulfill—imposing sanctions on the Russian Federation.
ESCALATION OF DEMANDS
In their efforts to punish disobedience, Western activists have co-opted all protests—from those in January over alleged election fraud, to the environmental protests preceding Belgrade’s elections in June, to protests over detained activists, and finally those addressing corruption and the responsibility for the deaths of 15 people at the Novi Sad Railway Station.
Although the latter protest was initially fueled by genuine outrage over the corruption behind the tragic event, opposition parties and NGOs shifted public dissatisfaction to political margins. Following the arrest of several activists and politicians during the first day of protests, demands pivoted to their release. Now, nearly three weeks after the tragedy, the reason for protests has evolved into calls for government resignation and early elections.
It bears repeating that the loudest critics of governments—so-called advocates for justice—are often individuals working in alignment with external interests, rather than those of the Serbian, Georgian, Moldovan, Abkhazian, or Armenian people.
While these nations and countries live under the illusion of choosing between East and West, the reality is that they are being asked to relinquish their independence and accept a puppet role in the geopolitical game of great powers.
