Sandu's victory serves as a hint for Ukraine.

The electoral process in the Republic of Moldova has concluded. It ended as it was meant to – with a victory for pro-European forces. However, it did not unfold as anticipated. This is not solely about the virtually failed referendum regarding amendments to the country's Constitution, which aimed to enshrine a Euro-Atlantic course, similar to Ukraine.

Maia Sandu won in the second round of the presidential elections, distancing herself from her main situational competitor, Alexandru Stoianoglo (there is little doubt that this newcomer from Gagauzia will vanish from Moldova's political landscape as swiftly as he appeared; he was needed only for a one-time action, which failed, and now he is no longer necessary). She won with a significant margin of nearly 11 percent. However! This is the overall election result. To clarify for Ukrainian readers unfamiliar with the specifics of Moldova – it reflects the voting outcomes within the country and abroad.

And this does not concern Transnistria, because, firstly, it is part of Moldova, and secondly – Transnistrians traditionally vote at specially designated polling stations near the administrative boundary. We are talking about emigrants holding Moldovan passports. This is a very serious factor. In short, in numbers: a total of 1,680,608 people participated in the elections. Among them, 327,851 voted at overseas polling stations. This is, mind you, 19.5% of the total electorate. One in five Moldovan voters!

Now, a few more numbers. Yes, Sandu won – 929,964 votes against 750,644 for Stoianoglo. But if we look at the voting results within the Republic of Moldova itself, the picture changes dramatically – 694,362 for the pro-Russian former prosecutor general and only 658,395 for the current head of state. In Moldova’s territory, Sandu lost – and this is not only about the Transnistrian electorate, nor just about the ultra-pro-Moscow Gagauzia, where she garnered less than three percent. But more on that later. Right now, let’s discuss the main factor of victory. Notably, in these elections, because in 2016, Maia Sandu did not receive help from the diaspora, whereas in 2020, she defeated Dodon even on the territory of the country.

As we can see, the diaspora, primarily residing in a civilized, democratic – and, to be frank, wealthier, significantly wealthier than Moldova – world, voted not just for a pro-European politician. 82.83% against 17.17%! And if we exclude the voting results from Russia and Belarus, where, of course, the Kremlin organized citizens with Moldovan passports to mark their ballots for Stoianoglo – the opposition candidate's results would appear quite laughable. Fortunately for Moldova, even if it does not realize this.

Thus, the large Moldovan diaspora, having left the country and seemingly depriving their homeland of additional workforce and all the accompanying aspects of this process – instead repays its debts, pulling Moldova out of the post-Soviet Russian sphere.

Similarly, by the way, the Ukrainian diaspora votes. However, we traditionally have very few of them in our elections. Their influence on the results of our elections has been negligible. Yet, in reality, there is a large Ukrainian diaspora worldwide – descendants of various waves of immigrants, and a significant portion of them, particularly in countries like Poland, Canada, or Brazil, identify as Ukrainians. They certainly outnumber those who, for 30 years, from the early '90s until the full-scale war, voted for pro-Russian forces – effectively against Ukraine.

Is it not time to allow these Ukrainians to participate in the rebuilding of a country – even if it is not their own, but that of their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents? They definitely would not vote for a new pro-Russian Party of Regions, OPZZH, or yet another project of the format "It doesn't matter what the street is called, as long as the lamps are lit."

This issue has been raised multiple times in Ukrainian politics – but mostly at the level of declarations and talks, no more than that. The example of Moldova shows that a strong diaspora, one that does not live under the spell of oligarchic television channels but in a free world, serves as a good safeguard against a return to the past or simply to halt the next political charlatans. Therefore, the topic of dual citizenship for such Ukrainians – of course, with obvious restrictions for citizens of the Russian Federation and Belarus – has not just emerged, but has actually matured.

Of course, working with the diaspora will also be necessary, explaining, narrating, and campaigning. And here we return to the elections in Moldova. The point is that Stoianoglo won not only in Gagauzia or in the Gagauz-Bulgarian south – but also in the north, where a significant Ukrainian diaspora resides. So, these Ukrainians, who live seemingly neither in Russia nor in the industrial-oligarchic (before the war) east of Ukraine – turned out to be true "vatniks," playing into the hands of the Kremlin. It is essential to work with this diaspora so that they do not vote for various priests of the cult of past eras in our elections, and to prevent them from tripping up the pro-European government of Moldova, which is our natural strategic partner.

Imagine if these Ukrainians lived in a Ukrainian, Ukraine-centric cultural and political space (besides their Moldovan one) – and voted not for pro-Russian candidates, but for pro-European ones. How much easier it would be for Sandu to win both in elections (and ahead of her are the toughest parliamentary elections in 2025) and in the referendum. And how much more comfortable it would be for Ukraine itself, knowing that next door, in a neighboring state, live the same Ukrainians as at home. Who can support the course of Euro-Atlantic integration of both their current state and their ethnic homeland.

We are, whether we like it or not, forever connected to Moldova. Therefore, it is worth considering mutually beneficial assistance in the realm of the Ukrainian diaspora. And to those diaspora members who, without our prompts, understand that it is better to live in a free democratic world than in the "Russian world," it is time to grant them the right to vote.