On 28 September – during Moldova’s elections which resulted in a victory for the pro-EU party – Telegram founder Pavel Durov posted on X to expose an attempt by French intelligence services to interfere with the election process. Durov reports that an intermediary, speaking on behalf of French intelligence, asked him to help Moldova “censor certain Telegram channels” before the vote. He admits that Telegram removed a small set of channels that clearly violated its rules, but then received a second list that was “nearly all legitimate”. Telegram refused to take down these accounts, citing that the only common feature was political speech disliked by the authorities – they did not support the pro-EU party.
Durov also added that the intermediary hinted at judicial favours in France in exchange for his cooperation, something he described as “unacceptable on several levels” and potentially an attempt to influence his legal case.
Durov Exposes France’s Attempt to Interfere with the Judicial Process
Posted at 12:34pm on 28 September 2025, Durov’s post is below:
“About a year ago, while I was stuck in Paris, the French intelligence services reached out to me through an intermediary, asking me to help the Moldovan government censor certain Telegram channels ahead of the presidential elections in Moldova.
After reviewing the channels flagged by French (and Moldovan) authorities, we identified a few that clearly violated our rules and removed them. The intermediary then informed me that, in exchange for this cooperation, French intelligence would “say good things” about me to the judge who had ordered my arrest in August last year.
This was unacceptable on several levels. If the agency did in fact approach the judge — it constituted an attempt to interfere in the judicial process. If it did not, and merely claimed to have done so, then it was exploiting my legal situation in France to influence political developments in Eastern Europe — a pattern we have also observed in Romania
Shortly thereafter, the Telegram team received a second list of so-called “problematic” Moldovan channels. Unlike the first, nearly all of these channels were legitimate and fully compliant with our rules. Their only commonality was that they voiced political positions disliked by the French and Moldovan governments.
We refused to act on this request.
Telegram is committed to freedom of speech and will not remove content for political reasons. I will continue to expose every attempt to pressure Telegram into censoring our platform. Stay tuned.“
What Happened in Moldova?
On Sunday 28 September, Moldova’s pro-European Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) won a parliamentary majority after a tense campaign saturated with warnings about foreign meddling. Some call it a victory for Europe; Moscow calls it manipulation.
Preliminary tallies show President Maia Sandu’s PAS topping 50 percent of the vote, securing a working majority in Moldova’s 101-seat parliament, while the main pro-Russia party fell way behind. European leaders quickly hailed the outcome as a popular mandate for EU integration, and a blow to the Kremlin’s influence. The campaign itself featured raids on alleged Russian proxy networks and warnings about cyber operations, and two pro-Russian parties were ruled off the ballot shortly before election day, a move that the opposition says tilted the field.
PAS pointed to Russian interference, using the church networks to influence the vote, while the opposition accused the government of weaponising state power and the platform rules of global tech to mute critics. Durov’s claim supports the latter.
Who Is Really In Control?
As covered in our previous article, a Reuters investigation documented how Russian structures courted Moldovan Orthodox clergy with all-expenses-paid trips to Moscow, anti-EU lectures, debit cards loaded with cash, and the launch of parish Telegram channels that pushed culture-war content into local communities. Moldovan authorities critiqued the efforts as abusing the most trusted social insititution in the country to manipulate public opinion. From PAS’ point of view, this report aligns with years of Russian information activity in the country, explains why Sandu’s government spoke so often about disinformation, and backs up the police’s execution of high-profile raids in the run-up to the vote.
Laid next to Durov’s claim of international manipulation in favour of the EU, the two strands paint a darker picture of 2025 politics. Moscow is accused of using faith and local media to stop Moldova’s EU membership bid, and European powers are alleged to have tried limiting free speech in order to control the narrative. Moldova itself is a country of just 2.4 million people – all of whom appear to have been caught between wide-reaching crossfire.
A Victory for Europe
PAS supporters say the results ensure Moldova remains on track to join the EU, bringing market access, anti-corruption reform, investment, and closer security coordination with neighbouring countries. The parliamentary victory is framed as proof that a frontline democracy can still choose Europe despite eastern pressures. The next steps are likely to be practical measures including energy diversification, improving border security with Ukraine, and continuing the long technical work of EU accession.
Russia’s Angle
Opponents claim the field was skewed, with late bans on parties, aggressive policing, and behind-the-scenes pressure on platforms – which Durov’s allegations support – suppressing legitimate political speech. A pro-Russian alliance would have promised cheaper energy, regional neutrality, and a reset with Moscow that lowers prices and calms culture-war tensions. Their narrative will seize on Durov’s post as evidence that Western governments played the very same games they accused Russia of playing.
Final Thought
It seems Moldova has chosen a path leading to the European Union. But, while the polling itself may have concluded, Pavel Durov’s emerging claims that Western services tried to curate the online conversation in the name of regional stability – just as Russian actors allegedly tried to warp it for their benefit – mean that the true debate isn’t over just yet. And ultimately, with both sides accusing the other of interference, can we even treat the result as legitimate at all?
Join the Conversation
Do you believe one side over the other? Did regular Moldovans ever even stand a chance of voicing their political opinions, or was the result predetermined? Share your thoughts below.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: World News