This was supposed to be the decisive moment. In order to change the Constitution and bring Moldova into the sphere of Western alliances, everything was aimed at a popular referendum. Because “Article 11 of the Constitution expressly enshrines the imperative norm that the Republic of Moldova declares its status of permanent neutrality.” Nicolae Osmochescu, one of the fathers of the Moldovan constitutional text, said this to me in Chisinau. And parliamentary deputy speaker Mihai Popsoi, a confidant of President Maia Sandu, admitted that there is a lot of work to be done: “This neutrality is something we have to evaluate again. We want to start a national debate on our neutrality and on alternatives that guarantee Moldova’s security.” That was a little over a year and a half ago, and the processing time promised to be long. But since then, Moldova’s fate has been under very strong pressure from the EU and NATO in Brussels. Who are now marching side by side. In the meantime, Popsoi became Minister of Foreign Affairs. Professor Osmochescu continued to dispense wisdom pills, urging caution. The result was the outcome of a referendum on Sunday, October 20, combined with the presidential election. Election day was set in the hope that Sandu’s strong candidacy for a second term would lead to a favorable constitutional amendment. For months, the only concern was voter quorum. Despite the very low threshold, set at 33 percent of those eligible to vote, the call for abstention from the opposition, starting with strong pro-Russian components, caused concern. And the opposition finally called on people not to leave their seats. Producing a paradoxical effect. Since the “yes” party won by a very small margin (50.3%), Moldova’s progress towards the Euro-Atlantic dimension now becomes more uncertain. Just as Sandu’s re-election seems uncertain, forced into a runoff with Socialist challenger Alexandru Stoianoglo, who on November 3 will be able to count – at least on paper – on the support of other opposition parties. An unexpected result for a strategy that wanted to link Moldova’s geopolitical position to the project of neighboring Ukraine. A further, hasty eastward expansion that stopped due to speeding. In Washington and some European capitals, fingers are being pointed at Russian disinformation and the money Moscow is putting up to buy thousands of votes. The response points to the intervention of Brussels, which a week before the vote, together with Commission President von der Leyen, promised Chisinau 1.8 billion dollars over the next two years. However, listening to the Moldovans’ speeches in the streets, markets, or bus stops was enough to understand their feelings. For one side that looks to the West as a great opportunity, there is another that remains wary. And it was the overwhelming majority that downgraded Sandu, who the day before was considered a sure winner in the first round with 55 to 60 percent of the vote, leaving her at a discouraging 40 percent. It was the Moldovans of the diaspora who saved her and the referendum. A third of the entire population, which, having voted from Europe, the USA, and Canada, achieved “a victory that smells of defeat,” as the presidential entourage admitted in Chisinau. Everything is now being played in the second round. If Sandu wins, she can start weaving the canvas of rapprochement with the EU and NATO again. Meaning not only a split among voters, but also a geopolitical split that for over thirty years has seen Transnistria self-declared independent and Russia-oriented. Which has a military contingent there. Those who speak of similarities with Donbass and Ukraine do so for a reason. Meanwhile, the countdown for the US vote, which will affect the international dynamics of the coming years on November 5, has reached its final stage. Trump and Harris are virtually tied in the polls. In the popular vote, as in the electoral colleges of seven historically undecided states, this will be crucial. Andrew Spannaus, in his analysis, helps us understand why, despite the negative “background noise” that has accompanied him for years, Trump is in the game more than ever. With the surprising observation that the electorate recognizes in him a competence in governance that Harris has yet to prove and can guarantee. Contrast this with what is happening in Germany, where Chancellor Scholz seems to have squandered initial credit for an “unnatural” alliance with the Liberals and Greens. A mistake that Heinz-Joachim Fischer cites as one of the many reasons for Germany’s current decline.