The American pre-election season is disquieting enough, but for those of us who witnessed the October 2012 parliamentary election in the Republic of Georgia, it is particularly sinister.

What I saw in Tbilisi was an uncanny foreshadowing of events unfolding now in the United States. The comparison may sound preposterous at first blush, but the parallels are undeniable and disturbing.

In Georgia in 2012, nobody suspected that a series of seemingly disconnected incidents could influence the election outcome or that they would turn out to be a coordinated campaign from outside the country.

Nobody was ready to detect the Kremlin’s hand in the proceedings — despite ample warnings by the incumbent pro-Western president, Mikheil Saakashvili. On the contrary, Saakashvili’s loud admonitions merely reinforced the impression that he liked to provoke Moscow unnecessarily.

We too have consistently underestimated Russia’s will and capacity to interfere abroad.

In the U.S., we too have consistently underestimated Russia’s will and capacity to interfere abroad, and have paid the price for it.

In 2012, the anti-incumbent Georgian Dream party won the election. The event was remarkable for the hitherto apolitical oligarch with opaque finances who came out of nowhere to lead the opposition. The oligarch, Bidzina Ivanishvili, refused to criticize Vladimir Putin, a notable stance in a country Putin had invaded only four years earlier.

Ivanishvili spoke of not “picking a fight with Russia.” Instead, he and his retinue invoked an alternate nationalism that defined itself against foreigners and “un-Georgian” elements. The country was being sold to outsiders, jobs were going abroad, Ivanishvili and his aides told his supporters. He hewed close to religious leaders. He railed against globalism and the danger to Georgian identity. He would put Georgia first.

It was the earliest rehearsal of the soon-to-be exportable Putinist ideology of alt-right conservatism that has since become familiar across Europe and most distinctly in the United States with the rise of Donald Trump.

[Ivanishvili] deliberately and systematically undermined the public’s faith in the election process — much as Trump has done.

Throughout the campaign, Ivanishvili’s supporters held noisy and threatening rallies in which they roughed up opponents before television cameras and warned they would riot if they lost the election. There was talk aplenty by Georgian Dream of the system being rigged against them. Ivanishvili himself warned that he could only lose through vote-rigging and that he would incite civil unrest as a result.

Ivanishvili spoke darkly of sending his supporters to monitor the ballot centers. He deliberately and systematically undermined the public’s faith in the election process — much as Trump has done.

In the weeks ahead of the election, Moscow raised the specter of military confrontation to an alarming pitch, precisely as it did recently with the U.S., with loud public murmurs about the possibility of nuclear war while it conducted domestic civil defense exercises.

In Georgia at the time, as in the U.S. today, voters were effectively asked to choose between a quiet life and a terrifying conflict. Ivanishvili presented himself as the only antidote, his opponent as a warmonger.

A pro-Russian candidate made the public feel safer, because he was not someone who was likely to poke the bear.

The stratagem grew ever more effective as Putin escalated his interference. Pointing the finger at Moscow increasingly came across as a provocation. A pro-Russian candidate made the public feel safer, because he was not someone who was likely to poke the bear. Similarly Donald Trump has warned, “You’re going to end up in World War lll if you listen to Hillary Clinton.”

In Georgia too, a pre-planned “surprise” — a harrowing prison-abuse video leaked nationwide and later linked to the Moscow-friendly Georgian mafia — hijacked the national debate, just as the release of emails by WikiLeaks has shaped the debate in the U.S.

It’s worth noting that Ivanishvili resigned from political office in 2013, a year after he was elected prime minister. He has continued to run the country through the Georgian Dream party, and has tried to lead his country toward the post-political stupor Soviet Republics enjoyed in the past. Only 51 percent of voters turned up to vote in the national election last month. Perhaps that is what he meant when he said he wanted to make Georgia more Georgian.

For the first time in their history, Americans are now genuinely concerned about their electoral process.

He always said he wasn’t interested in politics. Many Americans suspect Trump isn’t either.

For the first time in their history, Americans are now genuinely concerned about their electoral process. The possibility that the basis of their democracy — elections — could be destabilized by outside interference is real.

Luckily for all of us, America is a tougher nut for the Kremlin to crack. Georgia is a young democracy and it knew much less about political gamesmanship. Russia’s intimidating shadow loomed a lot larger.

Today at least, there is no longer any doubt about what the Kremlin can do, and does do, to other countries. Even America remains vulnerable as its citizens and institutions reel from unprecedented challenges to the system. Outside interference could still tip the balance — it may have done already — and is likely to remain a threat for many years.

Melik Kaylan is a foreign affairs columnist for Forbes.com and co-author of “The Russia-China Axis: The New Cold War” (Encounter Books, 2014).