Letter From the Editors

Over the past two weeks, major elections were held in the US, Georgia and Moldova under what NG calls the “banner of big geopolitics.” Indeed, all three elections presented voters with stark choices having divergent consequences for geopolitical stability. But, more significantly, the election results revealed the deep schisms within these societies. As the NG editorial board put it, “The voice of the people makes clear the division of the people.”

In the US, the gaping chasm between Democrats and Republicans resulted in a solid victory for Donald Trump. As political analyst Pavel Dubravsky explained to Vedomosti, Trump’s victory was fueled by his “effective strategy” to attract swing voters and people who traditionally support Democrats. These groups included young men, whom Trump was able to reach through podcasts, Arab Americans dismayed by Biden’s support for Israel, and Latin Americans, many of whom favor tighter regulation of illegal migration.

But it wasn’t just Trump’s skill at bringing in swing voters that won him the election. As Yegor Toropov contends in Izvestia, the Democrats did a good job losing the campaign for themselves. According to him, Harris’s defeat was brought about by her choice of vice-presidential candidate, her focus on abortion, and her strong social contract. The last in particular was a turnoff for most American voters, who, Toropov asserts, want to see greater deregulation in the economy, health care and education.

For readers of these pages, however, one of the top election intrigues may have been Trump’s relationship with Putin. As Trump famously said during his campaign, he would end the war in Ukraine “in a day” if elected. However, experts Novaya gazeta Europe spoke with say it won’t be that easy: The two leaders’ interests are simply too far apart. One expert, Aleksandr Morozov, points out that what the Kremlin really wants is a “spectacular defeat of the West,” something Trump is unlikely to agree to. Even so, expert Nikolai Petrov says that “the Kremlin believes it is easier to reach an agreement with Trump, because he is coming at it not from a values position, but from a business position. What’s important to him is what he can get in return.” The problem is that Putin doesn’t have much to offer.

He may have better luck with Georgia, where 54.2% of voters elected to keep the pro-Russian Georgian Dream party in power. But interviews with voters show that the results don’t exactly amount to a ringing endorsement of Russia. Many said that the example of Ukraine made them decide it is better to “be friends with Russia” than “quarrel” with it, while others cited the economic problems that a worsening of relations with Russia would cause for Georgia.

In (and outside of) Moldova, however, voters chose a different path, reelecting President Maia Sandu and giving a nod to her European integration path. In an article for RG, though, Ivan Sysoyev questions the legitimacy of these results, citing irregularities and “tricks” like bomb threats that made it difficult for voters to reach polling stations. But the biggest factor in Sandu’s reelection was the role played by the Moldovan diaspora in the West. Without that group, Sysoyev claims that Sandu – whom he refers to as a “diaspora president” – would not have won the election. In fact, he says, “Moldova and its diaspora chose different presidents.”

Meanwhile, Russia has its own elections to prepare for – the 2026 State Duma elections. According to Meduza, now is the time for the Kremlin to start trying to determine how to keep United Russia in power. But its approach will depend on the course of the war in Ukraine: If the war ends favorably for Russia, the election will require new moderate parties, but if it drags on, new “ultrapatriotic” parties will be needed. So only time will tell what trump card the Kremlin will play in its own bid to keep power.