In a previous piece, I broke down the current troubles of Moldova and the mistakes of history they are very likely to be repeated based on certain similarities this republic has to the Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia. In that article the only key difference that makes Moldova different from the others is that Sandu won the election (apparently cleanly) without a Maidan-style Color Revolution. The years following revolutionary change tend to be rather harsh so one would hope that this could be avoided but that is exactly why the winning side is building a pseudo-Maidan on the streets of Chișinău.

Image: Sandu and Zelensky: Is Ukraine a good or bad example for Moldova to follow?

The incoming President Sandu, has overtly stated that the reasons for these protests are to push for earlier elections next time with the justification that it will help the new President battle corruption. But how could earlier or later elections really affect corruption? The possible answer to this, is that there are too many pro-Russian members of the government currently in office and that she needs to strike while the iron is hot to get more pro-EU allies seated in various positions across the country.

This strategy makes a lot of sense as there is nothing more publicly disappointing then a Color Revolution 5 years in. This is the point where the naive street protestors that gave into empty promises see that nothing has changed except for a radical increase in national debt. Color Revolutions don’t age well, and poor countries that most Westerners can’t spell or find on a map tend to only get poorer and rustier under a cheap coat democratic of paint. The populous who fought for these changes wanted to remove corrupt officials from office, the problem is that they are simply replaced by different corrupt officials that wear a different lapel pin.

In the previously stated breakdown of the Moldovan situation, I made it clear that war between unhappy regions of the country and the capital is very likely since exactly the same thing has happened right after other Color Revolution events in other Former Soviet Republics. This sounded conspiratorial to some but thankfully President Sandu agrees with me saying that she “wouldn’t be surprised by a Nagorno-Karabakh situation in Transdniester”. It is always nice when world leaders publicly confirm your “conspiracy theory”. Although for the sake of the thousands that will potentially die, I hope that I will be proven completely wrong.

To be clear, the Maidan-style protests that Sandu is at the epicenter of are not for the sake of some sort of State Department checklist but to create the illusion of public support that happens from a Revolution. Politics can be very theatrical and it looks much better coming into office with hordes of angry villagers with pitchforks behind you. If you want to make big societal changes or try to send in your forces to break Transdniester then you will need a media friendly wave of popular support. We should not blame Sandu or any other politician for trying some stunt like this to drum up enthusiasm, what we can blame them for is to what ends will they use said enthusiasm.

What Sandu is doing is very intellectually interesting. Color Revolutions have always been an illusion of the people’s will. In Ukraine 40,000 organized activists decided the fate of 40 million citizens sitting at home watching passively. This was in a way a simulation of a revolution or a theatrical microcosm of one. What is happening in Moldova is essentially a “simulacrum” – a simulation of a simulation or a copy of a fake. This political term is very popular in Russian parlance, probably due to so many years of rule by the Communist Party, which adored fake attempts and fake results. When something falls into the simulacrum category it has no hope of success as it provides false solutions to false problems. This “Maidan Simulacrum” is for today a unique instance, but there is a lot of potential for politicians to try to copy this model.

Image: Despite leaving office Igor Dodon is heading to Moscow for important talks.

Leaders across the globe should take note of this move by Sandu as it was cheap, easy and could become very effective. This sort of fake revolutionary spirit has worked well for Chavez/Maduro’s Venezuela and Duterte’s Philippines in which this type of exciting spirit of change has served to maintain the state rather than overthrow it.

Perhaps one final interesting curiosity is that the soon to be former President of Moldova Igor Dodon is planning a big trip to Moscow for meetings in the halls of power. This is a very strange way to start one’s retirement. Dodon is a man of steel resolve and he may not let one electoral loss end his life mission. The results of Mr. Dodon’s trip will reveal a lot about where Moldova is heading and Russia’s ability to convince its former territory to stay somewhat close to home.

The Ukrainian, Georgian, Armenian Scenario is most likely

All of these countries share certain common features/tendencies.

• All of them were part of the Soviet Union/Russian Empire for centuries with deep cultural ties to Russia.
• All of them had at least one “odd” piece territory with a highly questionable and somewhat tense status (The Crimea, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and later the Donbass)
• All of them took radically anti-Russian shifts after a Color Revolution like scenario played out, meaning Russophobia became a core element of the justification for the rule of the revolutionary government.

Moldova meets all the criteria above with the exception that a full-fledged Color Revolution did not seem to take place. Dodon was under political assault his entire reign in office, but it was not protestors on the street with media support that booted him out of power – he simply lost the election. Perhaps there was some electoral trickery at play, especially considering Mr. Dodon enjoyed solid public popularity, but there is at this point no evidence of this and he has thus far accepted his loss gracefully.

Image: A scary powderkeg scenario is falling into place as the potential breakaway republics voted strongly for the now outgoing president.

But the places where Dodon won the most support are very telling – Gagauzia and Transdniester. These are regions that much like South Ossetia or the Donbass, are not at all happy with a pro-Western and potentially Romanian Nationalist president coming to power. They have a different ethnic makeup, no problem with speaking Russian, and do not identify with being “Moldovan”, especially when Transdiester issues its own passport and has basically been a de facto independent republic for decades.

As we have seen time and time again when pro-Western paradoxically Nationalist Liberals come to power in Eastern Europe minorities suffer. The most bold example of this was Georgia’s Saakashvili, who directly tried to snuff out the ethnic republics within his borders. This shows the truly incredible levels of double think in the West when Lukashenko is “the last dictator in Europe” ignoring the fact that there was a real attempt at old-school direct tank vs. civilian genocide in Georgia in 2008.

The horrors of the war in the Donbass perpetrated by confused conscripts under Nazi private battalions (surprisingly acknowledged by the Western Mainstream Media quietly) and the recent bloody mess in Nagorno-Karabakh initiated by a Color Revolution government in Yerevan show that Moldova will surely be next.

On a more day-to-day level, Moldova is sure to make exactly the same assumptions and mistakes as their neighbors economically as well. The new president and cabinet will be absolutely sure that the EU deeply values them and will make them rich. A few Moldovan politicians like Dodon are bold enough to push the point that half of their rather weak economy is food, clothing, and alcohol and it is unlikely that Moldovan wine shipped over great distances will somehow beat competitors like France. Furthermore, not only is competing in the EU for wine sales tough, but losing the main importer of their wines, Russia, is not a wise financial move. And surely Adidas and Zara are shaking in their boots at the prospect of having Moldovan competition made in small quantities by locals.

In short, the only argument that you will hear for Moldova orienting itself to the EU is Russophobia. Nothing besides that makes sense, then again Russophobia itself isn’t particularly sensical most of the time.

Of course, just like around the remnants of the USSR the Russian language is sure to come under attack while LGBT parades and propaganda will become commonplace as they are both key objectives of Washington’s foreign policy, as strange and sad as that may sound.

So far we have taken a look at how tendencies in Russia’s old territory can and probably will affect Moldova, but why do these tendencies exist? What causes these repeat patterns of politics and what could be done to change them?

Why do Breakaway Republics inside Former Soviet Republics always side with Russia?

The short answer is because they know they will be safe, because the Russians do not care what they do and the leadership of these regions does not fall for the nationalistic rhetoric of the dominant ethnicity of the country.

People wonder why United Russia and Putin always get such strong votes from ethnic minorities inside of Russia. This is because they fear the rise of some sort of (Liberal) Nationalists who will treat them like Russians get treated across the border – linguistically, culturally, and systemically repressed and at times murdered.

The breakaway republics look at things in the same way, they see Russia as a force that will not kill off their local language or force them into a different religion. Generally Moscow doesn’t care what hundreds of little ethnicities do as long as they play ball. Russia has generally assimilated while not exterminating outside cultures as it expanded and this attitude sure seems a lot more appealing when you hear tanks rumbling towards you near the beaches of Abkhazia.

Image: South Ossetians love Russia because they saved them from extermination in 2008. Wouldn’t you?

Although there are Uzbek nationalists who play the same Russophobic game within Uzbekistan, the Uzbeks (and many other minorities) in Kazakhstan are very concerned with keeping Russian as “the language of interethnic communication” to not feel the squeeze from Russophobic Kazakh Nationalists. Out of pure survival instinct you can hear many a pro-Russian monologue from a terrified minority in a Former Soviet Republic. The Uzbeks outside of Uzbekistan like the Russian approach to power which may fade away with time in Kazakhstan.

And in many ways, Russia being a safety net from oppression is how so many regions joined it in the first place. One side wants to invade you, crush your religion and force you to speak a new language, while Russia wants your tax money and will ask your kids to learn Russian in school a bit. Many Former Soviet Republics actually joined Russia voluntarily because nations like Iran and Turkey were much more scary at the time.

Why are Breakaway Republics attacked by Russophobic Liberal Nationalists, doesn’t that just hand them to the Russians?

One thing that the Former USSR and many other nations have in common is a centuries old tradition of feeling inferior to the West. Despite the fact that from a Western perspective Europe and America are on the decline if not collapsing, local yocals in Eastern Europe are still absolutely convinced that submission to the West will make their nation rich and powerful overnight.

Image: “What did we stand at the Maidan for?”. For the sake of a cultural inferiority complex that convinced them they are “Ukranians” and not Russians with a southern accent. (Source: ukr.media)

Since those in the Warsaw Pact nations perceive themselves as inherently worse than the West they overestimate the value of attention from the EU/Washington. The little Democratic Dictators like Saakashvili and Pashinyan seriously believed that the West were their new “friends” who would support them in their military adventures. They felt emboldened by having the White God Men of Europe give them their grace and let it go to their heads. They were sure that people who cannot find their countries on maps, care very deeply for their destiny and are willing to do anything for them. The vassals think that because the lord will shake their hand that he is their new best buddy.

The power of this inferiority complex in and around the Former Soviet Union cannot be understated and it is a deep seeded part of every culture that speaks a bit of Russian, including the Russians themselves. The idea that submission to the West will breed prosperity is on poorly spelled protest signs on the streets of Moscow just as often as in Kiev during the Maidan.

If the above is true then why does Russia allow this?

Good question. Ultimately Russians themselves do not seem to understand that besides economic, cultural and historical interests, human beings often make decisions based on feelings and unknown irrational motivations floating around in our heads. When you get the chance to talk to Russian, pundits, politicians and thinkers it becomes quite clear that virtually none of them are aware of what was written above, which leads to bad decision making. False assumptions = failing results.

In a sense a lot of the political happenings in the Former Soviet Republics are all just a big popularity contest that Russia loses mostly due to not being aware that the contest is going on at all let alone preparing as best they can to win it. Russophobia is seen, acknowledged, analyzed but never countered by the same means that it is projected.

Inside pro-Russian politics the participants see themselves in a battle against the degradation of the culturally masochistic West, trying to break free from the “yolk” of the world’s greatest empire (for the second time) while staring at a golden cross in the sky. But there are no movies or video games to support this vision. The most exciting ideas that could make Russia look “cool” remain hidden in academic discussions and Zoom conferences with dismal audio quality. Russia does not speak to its former territory in a way that would make it seem vastly and obviously superior to the West.

It is Russia’s inability to market itself that is going to doom some of the locals in Gagauzia and Transdniester to a fresh new period of misery in the upcoming years. Russia simply cannot rely on being “the alternative to genocidal regimes” in order to get its territory back one breakaway republic at a time.

The greatest moment of decision (until now) occurred in June 2019 when elections resulted in a three-way split between a pro-Russian Socialist Party, the pro-EU ACUM and another pro-western Democratic Party run by the arch Moldavian kleptocrat Vladimir Plahotniuc.

Vlad Plahotniuc: Deep State Tool and Force of Regime Change

A renowned kleptocrat whom by all accounts is known as the richest man in Moldova, Plahotniuc was not only a media and advertising mogul controlling the vast majority of the news, and entertainment of the small nation, but was also a power in Moldova’s banking, hotel and services industry who, with the support of Victoria Nuland, took charge of the pro-EU Democratic Party from December 2016. Although his highest political office was Deputy Speaker of Parliament, it was known by all, that Plahotniuc was the hidden hand controlling the state and aspired to make that power official by becoming Prime Minister.

During the dark days of the Obama era, Plahotniuc interfaced closely with Asif Chaudhry (U.S. Ambassador to Moldova from 2008-2011) who acted as power broker and mediator during the tumultuous period of change that saw the elimination of the pro-Russian Communist Party and the rise of the pro-Euro Integration movement under the Democratic Party in the wake of the 2009 “Twitter Revolution” (sometimes called the “revolution of Twits”). This crisis saw a near color revolution as 30 000 Jacobin youth in Chisinau aspired to overthrow the government by declaring the recent elections to be fraudulent. The slogans shouted by the mob included “we want Europe”, “we are Romanians” and “down with Communism”. Romania had joined NATO in 2004 and the movement to absorb Moldova into Romania was supported by many in the west wishing to see NATO’s unabated growth.

Beginning in April 7, 2009, these mobs took over (and set fire to) government buildings and replaced Moldovan flags with Romanian and European Union flags. While this effort was quashed by crackdowns by police, a taste of the potential for regime change was felt by all and then-President Vladimir Voronin called it a “coup d’etat”.

In hindsight, we can observe the growth of the media empire under the control of Plahotniuc and the vast investments into “democracy building” by the National Endowment of Democracy to get a sense of the causal hand behind these events, though at the time the culprits never came to light.

One thing is clear: The American State Department’s hand pervaded this story as Ambassador Chaudhry (connected closely to Victoria Nuland according to Wikileaks emails), was a major power broker and brags that his work in carrying out Moldovan democracy reforms during this time was the most rewarding experience of his career.

In the wake of this attempted coup, three pro-western opposition parties created the Alliance for European Integration winning 53 seats and pushing out the Communist Party from power.

By 2014, the long-sought for EU association agreements were signed by Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine with NATO’s bureaucrats salivating at the prospect of assimilating all three. At this time, Ukraine’s pro-Russian government had just fallen to its own color revolution and the new regime of Yatseniuk was calling for speedy NATO entry. Even though its 1994 Constitution prevented it, Moldova was already a part of the NATO Partnership for Peace Program and had participated in NATO’s Kosovo Force since 2014. A change in Constitution to permit for NATO entry by way of Euro integration (or total regime change) was not a huge stretch of the imagination at this point.

During this time high level Obama-era regime change agents like Joe Biden and John McCain made stops in Moldova and encouraged speedy western integration, meeting with kleptocrats like Plahotniuc and celebrating the new age of western “liberalism” that would transform the eastern bloc.

With such a powerful machine supporting them, Plahotniuc and other local Moldovan kleptocrats had every reason to feel as though they had the power of gods. The lords of high finance of London and Wall Street had ensured their unchallenged success for years, and with Moldova’s full integration into the NATO/EU cage nothing would hold them back… but with this hubris came a fair dose of sloppiness.

“The Theft of the Century” and Its Aftermath

Working closely with Israeli-Moldovan businessman Ilan Shor and fellow oligarchs Vyacheslav Platon and Vlad Filat, Plahotniuc carried out a blatant “theft of the century” to the tune of $1 billion stolen from Moldova (representing 1/8^th of the nation’s GDP) between 2011-2014. The model was simple and based on the use of offshore shell companies which laundered money and received fraudulent loans issued by the Moldovan Central Bank. That bank had itself taken over three major financial institutions (the Banca de Economii, Unibank and Banca Sociala) which extended fraudulent loans and businesses controlled by Ilan Shor and others within Plahotniuc’s network to the tune of $1 billion. $100 million were used directly by Plahotniuc to purchase, banks, businesses, hotels and other luxury real estate around Europe and Moldova.

Even though the facts of this fraud could not long be kept secret, Plahotniuc’s control on the levers of justice (especially the Constitutional Court which is packed with his partisans) ensured that little could be done to bring the oligarch to justice.

Vlad Filat was sacrificed by his former partner in 2016 and given 3 years in prison for bribes and participation in the heist while Ilan Shor was charged with laundering and embezzlement in abstentia though never saw a jail cell. In April 2017, Vyacheslav Platon was found guilty and given 18 years in prison but Plahotniuc never faced a single charge in Moldova. Things were a bit different elsewhere however and in 2017, Moscow’s Basmanny Court found the oligarch guilty of attempted murder.

In 2019, a Moscow court found Plahotniuc guilty of drug trafficking and money laundering and he was also charged with 28 counts of smuggling and sales of drugs (mostly hashish from North Africa)- and to these charges Plahotniuc obviously cried “Russian fantasies and fake news”.

During the hot phase of blowback during 2016, Plahotniuc was a guest of the pro-NATO Atlantic Council in Washington where he met with Victoria Nuland and other members of the Obama regime change party. The ‘Atlantic Council Moldova Program’ was also advancing a steady stream of pro-NATO propaganda funded by Jashi’s Trans Oil Group (on whose board sat former U.S. Ambassador Chaudhry).

Upon his return from America, Plahotniuc speedily moved to take full control of the Democratic Party.

In spite of his control of mass media, news of this “theft of the century” spread widely, and in an impoverished nation ranked lowest on the European Union poverty index where nearly 50% of the male population lives and works abroad as cheap labor, public tolerance for Plahotniuc’s sank to new lows with a 96% disapproval rating. The Democratic Party machine fell from favor and the pro-Russian Socialist Party again took power under Igor Dodon.

President Dodon wasted no time accelerating Moldova’s observer status in the Eurasian Economic Union which was made official on March 14, 2018 when Dodon called for a pro-Europe and pro-Russia policy (a blasphemy for some technocrats). At this time, Putin laid out the philosophy of EU-EAEU cooperation saying: “The Eurasian Union will be built on universal integration principles as an integral part of a harmonious community of economies from Lisbon to Vladivostok.”

In a February 2020 interview, Dodon echoed this orientation stating: “I believe in a big Europe, from Lisbon to Vladivostok. It was Charles de Gaulle who came up with this idea and its repeated often by various world leaders. I think this is the only solution to make Europe stronger.”

This had to be stopped.

From 2017-2019, the Plahotniuk apparatus licked its wounds, regrouped, and waited for the right moment to strike… and on June 7, 2019 that moment came.

Plahotniuc Attacks and Trips

Three months had passed since the February 2019 elections and a government had not yet formed. The three opposing parties that each won over 20% of the votes included Plahotniuc Democratic Party, the pro-EU ACUM party of PM Maia Sandu and the Socialist Party of Igor Dodon. Sandu’s role as a former World Bank executive didn’t bode well, but luckily her recognition that an alliance with Plahotniuc was political suicide kept her from making a devils pact and at the last minute chose to form a coalition government with Dodon in defense of the nation’s true interests where both parties united in the common cause to flush the swamp of oligarchs.

This alliance was arranged at the same moment that Plahotniuc’s Constitutional Court deemed the February elections invalid (party leaders have 3 months to shape a new government after elections). The court demanded that Dodon be deposed as President (for failing to call new elections), and the new coalition government declared null and void. Former PM Pavel Filip refused to recognize the new government calling it illegal and demanding a new election while Plahotniuc waited with bated breath for his moment to take over.

From June 7-15^th a dual power struggle erupted and with the highest court in the land backing regime change, it wasn’t looking good. The Democrats staged demonstrations and blocked state buildings for days. Everything was in place for a coup.

The only missing ingredient was the expected American support that had always been there for Plahotniuk and the Trans Oil Machine which ran Moldova for decades.

Then something unexpected happened.

On June 15, 2019 Moldova’s Democratic Party officially announced that their leader had left the country to visit family “for a couple of days”. Over a year later, the oligarch still has not returned knowing that to do so could mean decades in a Moldovan (and possibly even Russian) prison.

Although there are many facets to this plot twist that are still hidden from public view, TASS’s coverage on June 15 made clear that the Democratic Party “leaders had never stopped to hope for Washington’s support in the confrontation with the President, parliament and Sandhu cabinet, but received none.”

U.S. Ambassador Horgan revealed in December 2019 that Plahotniuc’s departure was the result of his news that the USA would not help him.

Without this support, all hope was lost.

Within a month PM Sandu described the anti-corruption crackdown underway saying: “We are in the process of liberating this captured state. The servants of the Plahotniuc regime are leaving, one after the other.” Although Plahotniuc may have been a corrupt beast, he was no dummy and recognized the Transparency International report published in June 2019 outlining his sordid role in the $1 billion bank theft was not going to disappear.

By August 2019, a Russian arrest warrant was unveiled after Plahotniuc was tried in abstentia in Moscow for “creating and participating in criminal groups” and “carrying out illegal transactions in foreign currencies and rubles using fake documents”- referring to $569 million scheme that turned Moldova into a laundromat using the oligarch’s offshore shell companies. It was at this time that the oligarch applied officially for asylum in the USA.

As Sandu was replaced by PM Igor Chicu in November 2019, the cleaning of the swamp continued in full force with the new Prosecutor General Alexandru Stoianoglo tasked with bringing Plahotniuc to justice. In May 2020, Moldovan prosecutors charged Plahotniuc again and sought extradition from the USA where he has been holed up illegally in Florida.

Why do I say “illegally”?

Because on January 9, 2020, the USA State Department annulled his (and his family’s) VISA, with Pompeo declaring in a public statement four days later:

 “Today, I am designating former Moldovan official and oligarch Vladimir Plahotniuc due to his involvement in significant corruption. In his official capacity, Plahotniuc was involved in corrupt acts that undermined the rule of law and severely compromised the independence of democratic institutions in Moldova… Once the Secretary of State designates officials of foreign governments for their involvement, directly or indirectly, in significant corruption, those individuals and their immediate family members are ineligible for visas to the United States.”

The fearful oligarch has taken the unprecedented decision to launch a last Hail Mary effort to save his skin by suing the U.S. State Department on June 11 2020 saying “this action arises out of an unlawful and unjustified designation as ‘undesirable’ entered against Vladimir Plahotniuk and his immediate family members by the State Department” adding without a shred of evidence that Putin even attempted to kill him using Albanian hitmen on several occasions.

The question now remains:

Who is protecting Plahotniuc?

It is obvious that the Obama-era deep state that ran Moldova’s 2009-2016 EU/NATO integration insanity is no longer the sole force driving U.S. foreign policy and a fight between this apparatus and the Trump presidency has been waging for four years. Plahotniuc’s current status in Florida, in spite of an undesirable status and with no VISA indicates powerful forces are protecting him. Both in America and abroad alike.

The fact that within the same Florida luxury complex that Plahotniuc has been seen living in, also contains a $2.2 million condo owned by Trans Oil executive Dmitriy Kurilo should be taken seriously. The fact that Kurilo’s purchase was carried out by Trans Oil president Vaja Jhashi to whom Kurilo gave powers of attorney should also be considered. The connection of these figures to former U.S. Ambassador Asif Chaudhry who sits on Trans Oil’s board of directors and last served as the architect of Obama’s “Asia Pivot” while serving as advisor to the Chief of the NAVY in the Pentagon from 2011-2014 should also not be ignored. Lastly the fact that the Trans Oil group’s monopoly over Moldovan agriculture was made possible by multimillion-dollar U.S. government loans granted to the company while Chaudhry was the American Ambassador to Moldova is worth holding in mind.

We already know there are many two faced figures within the Trump presidency who project one patriotic face publicly yet who have actively worked against Trump’s oft-stated desires to have “good relations with Russia and China”, rebuild American manufacturing and end the “forever wars”. Bolton and Bannon were two of them, but Pompeo himself is another. Even former director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell had worked for Plahotniuc on various occasions.

Then there is the matter of international deep state support. For example, France’s Interpol has stalled repeatedly from issuing an international arrest warrant even though both Russian and Moldovan governments have made legitimate requests. Why this resistance? Even the European Parliament has passed a resolution in 2018 calling Moldova “a state captured by oligarchic interests”- making Interpol’s resistance ever more odd.

So where does Moldova go from here?

Regardless of whether or not Plahotniuc is extradited sooner or later, the game is most certainly up, and beginning in late 2019, Moldova began to reclaim its ancient heritage as a keystone in China’s East-West Silk Road as two major infrastructure deals worth $400 million were signed with China, including two major highways: One encircling Chisinau and the other connecting to Ukraine.

President Dodon beautifully expressed his understanding of this process in March 2020 saying:

“We should acknowledge that this pandemic has shown ‘who is who,’ who is a real friend and who will be always by our side in need, even if they also face hard times… I will cite as an example Russia and China here because these were the first countries that responded to our request.”

“We enjoy strategic partnership and strategic dialogue at the levels of presidents, prime ministers, and parliament speakers… I think one of the major achievements is that we have got rid of the oligarch regime,” he said. “An important result is that we started carrying out a balanced foreign policy. Even against the background of those deals signed with the European Union, we managed to obtain an observer status in the Eurasian Economic Union.”

The author can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

On Nov.14, just a day before the decision to cut assistance, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a nonbinding resolution saying Moldova has become a "state captured by oligarchic interests" that exert their influence over most parts of Moldova's society. The country is actually ruled by a small group of tycoons. Chisinau is criticized for backsliding on democratic standards and the rule of law. The document says Moldova has failed to cope with “high levels of corruption, lack of independent judiciary and backsliding on democratic standards.”

The dubious results of mayoral elections in the capital Chisinau and the disappearance in 2014 of an estimated $1 billion from Moldova's banks are matters of special concern to be addressed before the assistance starts to pour in again. The MEPs resolution went as far as to mention the possibility of sanctions imposed on some Moldovan individuals. EU Neighborhood Commissioner Johannes Hahn believes the EU will suffer a blow to its reputation if it does not insist on European standards being respected. “Otherwise people would believe we are in a way a lame duck.” He says the EU could cancel the visa-free traveling regime to the Schengen zone, which Moldovans have been enjoying since 2014.

The Moldova-European Union Association Agreement went into force in 2016. The bloc is Chisinau’s largest trade partner accounting for 64% of total exports and 56% of the country’s trade as of last year. Moldova is the poorest country  in Europe. It is the 122^nd least corrupt nation in the world.

Moldova will hold parliamentary elections in February. The EU will be closely monitoring the process. Brussels had treated Moldova quite differently just some time ago. It has all changed now. The EU is gradually realizing that the oligarchs-ruled Moldova is more of a headache than an asset for it.

Chisinau has gone to any length to demonstrate its “loyalty” and anti-Moscow stance. It has joined the anti-Russia political alliance with Ukraine and Georgia – other pro-Western Russia-hostile states ruled by oligarchs who obstruct reforms.  The Moldovan government has sent its troops to participate in NATO exercises in open violation of its national laws. Everything is done to embrace the North Atlantic Alliance. Chisinau has announced a decision to buy lethal weapons from the pact’s members. The country is on the way to become a foothold for US military, including the construction of eight training facilities for military operations in urban terrain at the Bulboaca training base to host American Marines.

In June, the UN General Assembly voted for the Moldova-submitted resolution calling on Russia to immediately withdraw its peacekeepers from Transnistria, a breakaway region of Moldova. Chisinau complained about what it calls “Russia’s occupation”. There are Russian 1250 servicemen stationed in Moldova. 450 soldiers are on a peacekeeping mission in accordance with the decision of the 1999 OSCE summit. The mission is carried out in compliance with international law. The 800 men strong Operational Group of Russian Forces is there to guard ammunition depots near Kolbasna settlement left over from the days of the Soviet Union. They are also peacekeepers. Is it an occupational force?

One of the reasons for Russia to reunite with Crimea through a referendum was the need to comply with the responsibility to protect – the fundamental principle of the United Nations. No other OSCE member state has agreed to allocate forces for the peacekeeping mission in Transnistria. If the Russian peacekeepers leave, a big fire can be re-ignited. As a UN member, Russia is obliged to prevent such a development.

An oligarchs-ruled state plunged in corruption and backsliding on democracy violates its international commitments hoping that a blind eye will be turned on what’s happening in the country as long as it sticks to its policy of open hostility toward Moscow. Does this hostility meet the interests of common people in Moldova, the country which is totally dependent on Russian gas imports via the pipeline system that passes through Ukraine? Will EU taxpayers pay for energy supplies to Moldova in case Russia stops the supplies? Will they shoulder the burden of building interconnectors to Moldova stretching from other European countries?

The parliamentary elections in Moldova are scheduled on February 2019. The Socialist Party Moldovan President Igor Dodon is a member of is predicted to win. The country’s foreign policy will change as a result to make Moscow and Chisinau friends and good neighbors again. The current government’s moves and plans will lose their relevance. The EU could restore its assistance. Russia could re-start normal economic cooperation. The US will lose an ally that wants a lot to be given much without offering much in return. But one should give the devil his due – the European Parliament’s resolution and the following move by the European Commission are timely steps to demonstrate that being anti-Russian is not enough to automatically become a part of United Europe with its standards and rules to abide by.

The view that Russia should leave Transnistria is not shared by Moldovan President Igor Dodon representing the large Socialist Party predicted to win the next election, which is slated for November. It means there is no consensus on the issue inside the country and it’s not known if those who call for Russia’s withdrawal constitute a majority of population. It would have been logical for the Moldovan government to wait for the election results and see if its stance is backed by popular support. It did not do it. Any assessment must take into account the fact the government’s position on the matter can change till the end of the year and the probability is high. In a few months the document may lose its relevance.

The resolution was backed by 64 states with 83 UN members abstained and 14 voting against. The United Nations Organization has 193 members. As one can see, there was no overwhelming support, to put it mildly. 64 out of 193 means the resolution was backed by only 33 percent of members – not a big thing! 43 percent failed to say yes or no. Decisions on important problems require either a two thirds majority or a simple majority. It was not the case.

There had been no consultations and discussions held before the vote. Many UN members don’t know much about the problem that few nations have any relation to or really interested in. Anyway, the result of the vote is not binding.

At present, 450 Russian soldiers are stationed on a peacekeeping mission in line with the decision of the 1999 OSCE summit. The Operational Group of Russian Forces is an 800 men strong unit deployed to guard ammunition depots near Kolbasna settlement left over from the days of the USSR. Overall, there just over 1250 servicemen in Moldova. This force is too small to pose any danger to anybody. All the stories about “occupation”, “aggression” or whatever sound funny.

The document mentions only the Group of Russian Forces in Moldova, not the Russian peacekeepers monitored by the Joint Control Commission but the two contingents are elements of the same mission, their functions are interrelated. All Russian servicemen are peacekeepers. 450 are not enough to prevent the worst from happening.

The resolution ignores the fact that the decisions of the military mission in Transnistria were taken within the framework of the OSCE. The document undermines OSCE procedures. The Russian mission is carried out in compliance with international law.

Transnistria separated in 1991 after the dismemberment of the USSR. A bloody conflict broke out in 1992 to end with the arrival of Russian forces to be followed by negotiations and a truce. The Russian mission in Moldova has been a success for a more than a quarter of century. Nobody else but Moldova insisted on sending a peacekeeping force in 1992.

Chisinau likes to emphasize that the 1999 OSCE Istanbul summit included the commitment by Moscow to withdraw but it never remembers that the agreement was linked to the provisions of the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) that limited NATO and Warsaw forces. NATO actually never complied with it as it kept on expanding. Russia had to pull out from the CFE in 2015. The treaty is dead today. It also should be remembered that the Istanbul document does not rescind the 1992 truce accord.

If the troops leave, a big fire can be kindled again. As a UN member, Russia is obliged to prevent such a development. If it leaves and shooting starts, the very same people who demand its withdrawal will blame it for allowing such a horrible thing to happen. The responsibility to protect (RtoP) is a UN fundamental principle all states are to comply with. Russia is protecting the people of the region from horrors of another war.

And now the main thing – the opinion of the people of Transnistria was completely ignored! Should they be deprived of their right for self-determination? The Transnistrian democratically elected leadership supports the Russian military presence. Nobody calling for Russia’s withdrawal offered any alternative to guarantee peace in the region. 

Of course this event must be viewed in its proper context.

On May 28, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly declared its support for Georgia and Ukraine’s hopes of joining the alliance. A proposal regarding Georgia’s expedited entry into NATO has been floated recently, as the bloc’s summit in July draws closer. The plan submitted for consideration by the American Heritage Foundation offers a “creative way around” the territorial problems with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The alliance could amend the Washington Treaty by temporarily excluding the two entities recognized by Russia as independent states from NATO’s Article 5 protection. That proposal is being studied by Georgia’s parliament.

Last month, Tbilisi went to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg to accuse Russia of war crimes that were allegedly carried out in August 2008. Back then it was Georgia that was committing an act of aggression by attacking South Ossetia and the Russian peacekeepers, but 10 years later it is portraying itself as an innocent victim — another example of the pot calling the kettle black. That country has vigorously pursued the “more NATO in Georgia and more Georgia in NATO” concept, contributing to NATO operations and becoming part of the bloc’s institutions. Last year, the US administration voiced its support of Georgia’s NATO membership but did little afterwards to back those words up with any deeds.

Ukraine already plays host to the American military and receives lethal weapons from the US. It has recently appealed to Germany and France to support its NATO bid. Ukraine’s president has received an invitation to take part in the upcoming NATO summit.

Moldova is on its way to becoming a foothold for the US military and is embracing NATO. It has announced its decision to buy lethal weapons from the pact’s members. Chisinau is demanding that Russia’s military withdraw from Transnistria immediately and unconditionally. That government is openly unfriendly toward Moscow and does everything to heighten tensions between the two countries.

In March, Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova joined together to form an anti-Russian political and military alliance, reviving the GUAM organization with Azerbaijan, which is ready to cooperate but prefers to keep its distance from the anti-Moscow agenda, thus making it more of a GUM than a GUAM when it comes to opposing Russia.

Now, let’s have a look at what’s in store for this newly formed bloc, which is so hostile to Moscow.

Presidential elections will be held in Georgia in October 2018. The country has been weathering a storm of popular protests. Economic and social hardships are fueling public discontent. Standards of living have stagnated. Falling prices for some exports have reduced spending power. In 2016, the country signed an EU Association Agreement with the European Union. As a result, in the next few years European regulations will be introduced although the benefits of that trade regime will remain out of reach. The country is known for the corruption of its law enforcement agencies. There is no broad political consensus regarding the ongoing constitutional reforms. Full-fledged membership in Western organizations (NATO and the EU) remains a pipe dream. Some nations that have been accepted as members in the past were even less prepared to meet the requirements, but entry into these Western blocs that are focused on other problems still remains out of reach for Georgia. All it gets is promises.

The Ukrainian presidential election is to be held in late March 2019 despite the voters’ mistrust of the authorities. President Poroshenko’s chances of reelection are rather slim. He is polling behind several other candidates. Former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko is leading the polls. The country is facing increasing debt pressure. The risk of instability is high. Foreign investors and human capital are leaving the country. Ukraine remains poor — it is the only former Soviet republic in Europe that has never surpassed its GDP level from its days back in the USSR. Corruption, favoritism, and the power of its oligarchs are undermining Ukraine’s economy. The nation’s future looks bleak.

Moldova struggles with an overwhelming tide of corruption. Economic reforms have been carried out at a sluggish pace. The country is nearly wholly dependent on Russian gas imports via the pipeline system that passes through Ukraine. Moldova remains one of Europe’s poorest countries, with an annual per capita GDP of $2,280 in 2017. The nation is facing a parliamentary election in late November. The Socialist Party, led by pro-Russian President Igor Dodon, is predicted to win and change the country’s foreign policy. The ruling pro-Western Democratic Party has dismal ratings.

The three countries face the same problems: rule by oligarchs, a process of reform that is slow or nonexistent, relatively poor economic performance, and extremely remote prospects for joining Western organizations as full-fledged members. They are given special partner status, which sounds fine but in reality means little. The ruling elites feed the people promises that never come true. Their anti-Russian stance has never made anyone prosperous or secure. On the contrary, joining NATO and becoming springboards for potential attacks will only undermine their security, turning them into targets for the Russian military. Moscow has warned against moving the Western alliance to its borders.

Since Moldova will soon be out, the anti-Russian bloc will be short-lived. Georgia has its own problems as a South Caucasian nation. Those two countries have little to offer each other except vocal support. None of the three GUM bloc members has received massive economic aid from the West or has been treated as an equal by any leading Western nations. None of them, no matter how they try, can break all ties with Russia, due to the realities of geography and economics. None of them is expected to be greeted with open arms in the EU or NATO. The formation of this bloc can be used for propaganda purposes, but in reality it’s nothing but a flash in the pan that will soon be forgotten. It has no future.

Photo: azertag.az

Right after the two presidents’ conversation, the Russian and American chiefs of staff discussed Syria. What’s even more important is that they have agreed to more military-to-military contacts in the future. Why has it suddenly become so important for Washington to launch a dialog on defense issues? The answer was provided by General John E. Hyten, the Commander of US Strategic Command, who admitted in the Senate that the US is defenseless in the face of the threat from hypersonic weapons. This realization came right after Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed his recent information about the new systems capable of hypervelocity flight that are currently being tested and are soon to be operational.

The US is a great military power but it’s not strong enough to force everyone to dance to its tune. Its defense programs suffer from serious shortcomings. The current arms-control system is in crisis. New challenges keep cropping up. They should be incorporated into the international security agenda but that’s not happening.

The looming hypersonic race is a burning issue that still needs to be addressed. It’s a domain in which the US is lagging behind Russia. When the Russian president announced those breakthroughs in military technology, his revelations were met with some skepticism in the West. But the ensuing events proved him right. Vladimir Putin pulled it off, making hotheads come to their senses and realize the need for talks to address the security challenges. Washington needs this dialog more than Moscow does.

So, the Americans’ coveted leadership in military technology has turned out to be a pipe dream. But their furtive steps to bring NATO right to Russia’s doorstep are not. The most interesting things often fall off the radar.

Moldova is to planning to phase out its draft in order to have a professional military. This month, Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine formed an anti-Russia alliance. Moving to an all-volunteer force is in keeping with the political goals of this group and is seen as an important step on the path to NATO membership. That reform is scheduled to begin this fall. This is a very costly endeavor, especially when one is talking about the poorest country in Europe. Chisinau cannot afford it. It will be fully dependent on assistance from Romania and other NATO states.

Moldova’s process of embracing the bloc has accelerated recently. A joint Romanian-Moldovan task force equipped and trained in accordance with NATO standards is on its way. That step was agreed on in February. According to the military cooperation agreement signed by Chisinau and Bucharest in 2012 and ratified by the Moldovan parliament in 2013, Romanian troops and police forces enjoy freedom of movement on Moldovan territory. In other words, a NATO member has a free hand in Moldova, although the region of Transnistria, where Russian peacekeepers are stationed, is part of that country. This is a real hornet’s nest and the problem remains unaddressed.

The fact that Poland has shifted its best military forces, including its most modern tanks, eastward has not gone unnoticed in Russia. The country will receive 70 AGM-158B JASSM-ER long-range air-to-surface missiles from the US by 2020 or a bit earlier. With an operational range of roughly 1,000 km, this stealth weapon boasting a penetrating warhead can hit infrastructure deep inside Russia. One does not have to be a military expert to realize that the JASSM-ER’s prime mission is to knock out Russian Iskander short-range missiles deployed in the Kaliningrad region in a first strike.

The small Polish town of Powidz is to become a NATO hub for the Baltics and Northern Europe. Construction is underway to build a storage facility for a brigade’s worth of military hardware and personnel. The US Aegis Ashore BMD system will be operational in Poland this year. This is a highly destabilizing weapon that will become a target for a first strike by the Russian military.

Nor has Russia forgotten about the 300 US Marines stationed in Norway, or the construction of a sophisticated new radar system known as Globus 3 in the Norwegian Arctic archipelago of Svalbard. This is a violation of international law, as Svalbard was supposed to be demilitarized under a 1925 treaty. The facility there is an element of NATO’s ballistic missile defense (BMD) system. The joint US-Norwegian radar station is viewed by Moscow as a clear provocation. Norway is to be provided with over 50 US F-35 stealth fighters in 2019, enabling it to strike Russian territory. The F-35 is a nuclear-capable plane.

All these moves are being closely watched by the Russian military. Even if new weapons are incorporated into the bilateral arms-control agenda, the efforts to create the potential for a first strike near Russia’s borders are certainly not something Moscow can turn a blind eye toward. This does not create the right environment for a security dialog between Moscow and Washington. Everything is connected.

What Russia and the US really need is not just talks about curbing super weapons, but also negotiations addressing a much broader security agenda.

With America’s tacit approval, the GUAM bloc, chaired this year by Moldova, is being revived. Last March, the prime ministers of Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Azerbaijan held a meeting (Baku was represented by its deputy PM) in Kiev. It was the first high level meeting since 2008. The cooperation agreement signed by those foreign ministers last October mentions a free trade zone. The GUAM organization is expected to hold a summit this June. Three of its members – Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia – act as tools for advancing America’s interests in the region. With the blessing of the US, they signed EU association agreements in 2014. The 2018 foreign-policy priorities list drafted by Moldova includes mention of the US, the Visegrad group, and Japan. According to Chisinau, the countries of the former Soviet Union – long-standing partners with which it shares historical ties – don’t deserve such an honor.

The speakers of parliament from these three countries took part in a security conference in the Moldovan capital titled "Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine: Eastern Partnership and Current Security Challenges," which was held on March 2 and attended by about 150 senior officials and experts from different countries. Of course US lawmakers and pundits were among the participants. As usual, the Atlantic Council, an American think tank that always supports neo-cons and anything anti-Russian, could not miss the chance to kindle anti-Moscow sentiments. Damon Wilson, its executive vice president, announced that the US was carefully watching over Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia, claiming that they “wish to become part of our family,” as he put it.

The parliamentary leaders seized the opportunity to issue a joint statement condemning Russia’s military presence in what they believe to be their respective states’ territories. The document was published in English to reflect the pro-Western tilt of the three-state group. They are “concerned profoundly” over Russian troops in Moldova (1,000 troops and 500 peacekeepers stationed in Transnistria) and what they call “occupation” and “intervention” in some parts of Ukraine and Georgia.

As usual, Moscow is blamed for supporting “separatist movements” and other nefarious acts. The speaker of the Georgian parliament, Irakli Kobakhidze, said an anti-Russian alliance is needed, because only if they are united can these nations stand up to the “challenges” coming from Moscow. “We need joint strategies to face Russia's aggression,” chimed in Andriy Parubiy, the speaker of the Ukrainian Rada. To dispell any doubts about the new groups’ allegiance to NATO, he emphasized that “On this occasion I would like to speak of the threats faced not only by our region, but also by the Euro-Atlantic zone.”

The idea of reviving this alliance that was designed to counter Russia has failed. Azerbaijan refused to take part in any conference with such a clear anti-Russian agenda. That event demonstrated that there is no unity on Russia within the ranks of GUAM. So, GUAM is actually GUM – a group of three states that have been heavily influenced and pressured by the Americans and which are being used to “contain” Russia and forced to serve as NATO springboards.

These three states could maintain friendly relationships with everyone and stick to a neutral policy. Cooperation with the Eurasian Union could benefit their economies. Good relations with Moscow would not hinder their ties with the EU or other institutions or states, including the US. They could simply refrain from taking sides and concentrate on the well-being of their people. But no, they have chosen to adopt an attitude that is hostile to Russia and join those who are confrontational toward Moscow.

On March 2 the three member states actually announced the creation of a new anti-Russian alliance that will negatively affect the political landscape in Eurasia. The immediate objective is to push Russia out and pull the US in. Ukraine is a divided nation, plunged in crisis, and unable to fight its own entrenched corruption. Moldova is facing an election in the fall and the so-called pro-Russian forces are predicted to win. In Georgia, the idea of NATO membership does not have the support of the majority of the population, according to a recent poll. But the governments of these states are pushing the NATO agenda. They coordinate their political activities in order to counter Moscow in any way they can. For instance, they always vote for Ukraine in the PACE, strongly oppose the Nord Stream gas project, and continue to move closer to NATO.

Moldova has announced its decision to buy lethal weapons from NATO members. Its government is chomping at the bit to join “Western institutions.” Ukraine is home to a US naval facility and is scheduled to receive American lethal arms. Tbilisi is pursuing a “more NATO in Georgia and more Georgia in NATO” policy.

What brings them together? All three states are ruled by oligarchs who obstruct reforms. With their economies in dire straits, the ruling elites promise their people paradise if they join the EU and NATO and become good friends of the US. Adopting an anti-Russia policy is their payment for Western aid and support. Their own national interests and sovereignty are being exchanged for crumbs dropped from the master’s table. 

The mention of the need to meet NATO standards (whatever it means) was done on purpose. It was a policy statement as the Moldovan government is shifting from neutrality to ally itself with the West. Moldova is a member of the NATO’s Partnership for Peace program. It has participated in the bloc’s mission in Kosovo.

On Feb.5, Romanian Minister of Defense, Mihai Fifor visited Moldova to meet his counterpart. Joint projects to move Chisinau closer to NATO topped the agenda. The two officials reached an agreement on formation of a joint battalion trained to respond to emergencies. The move is taken to familiarize Moldova's military personnel with NATO's procedures. It was announced that 41 Moldovan servicemen will go through training in Romania this year. Some 800 Moldovan soldiers have already been trained there.

The Romanian Defense Chief said Bucharest wishes for Republic of Moldova's European track to become an irreversible process. In December, 2017, the NATO Liaison Office was opened in Chisinau to confirm the fact that Moldova has become a springboard for NATO information offensive. Last May, Moldova expelled five Russian diplomats. Just a few days ago a law banning Russia broadcasting in Moldova came into force. The country has joined NATO anti-Russia propaganda effort.

Not much has been said about it but the US Navy plans to construct eight training facilities for military operations in the Bulboaca training base. Probably, the facility will host American Marines. Last March, US Army Commander in Europe Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, said US seeks “ways to do more exercises in the southern flank of NATO”. In the summer of 2017, Bulboaca hosted the Dragoon Pioneer 2017, a joint US-Moldovan exercise.

Romanian Prime Minister Viorica Danchila will visit Chisinau on February 27 after her trip to European institutions. New moves to strengthen security cooperation with NATO via Romania are expected. Moldova’s ruling coalition will seek to limit Russia's influence, said Daniel Coates, the US Director of National Intelligence, at the hearings in the special committee on intelligence of the US Congress Senate held on Feb.13.

On Feb.12, the Moldova’s Defense Ministry announced that the military would join the US, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine and Georgia in Platinum Eagle, a large-scale military exercise. The mission is to deploy joint forces under unfavorable battle conditions.

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, Moldova’s Prime Minister Pavel Filip used the opportunity to call for withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria. Speaker of the Moldovan parliament, Andrian Candu, says that the presence of Russian troops stationed on the left bank of the Dniester is illegal. According to him, they should be withdrawn with compensation paid by the Russian government for the damage supposedly inflicted by the “occupation forces”.

Last July, Moldova’s parliament passed a resolution urging the withdrawal of Russian military from Transnistria. The lawmakers for Socialist Party left the parliament in protest against it, while Moldavia’s President Igor Dodon called the move a provocation. The vote came a day after the Moldovan government refused to allow a military aircraft with Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Rogozin on board to land in Chisinau. The official was to take part on the festivities devoted to the 25th anniversary of the Transnistria’s peacekeeping mission.

The authorities of the breakaway republic oppose such a move. They say the Russian military presence guarantees peace. The Russian-speaking region of Transnistria separated from Moldova in 1991. An armed conflict broke out in 1992-1993. Russian peacekeepers put an end to the fighting. The 1,000-strong task force, including Russian, Transnistrian and Moldovan military assisted by a dozen of Ukrainian military observers, has been securing peace for about 26 years.

Roughly, 1,000 Russian servicemen guard the warehouses in Kolbasna (some 20,000 tons of ammunition). This presence is very limited and poses no threat to anybody but it ensures peace. Suppose Russian peacekeepers leave, is there any OSCE member willing to contribute its forces? Can anybody guarantee no armed conflict will spark again to take away human lives? It should be noted that the “5+2 format” talks on Transnistrian peace held since 2005 by Moldova, Transnistria, the OSCE, Russia, Ukraine as parties and the EU and the US in external observers’ roles have produced no results so far. No one of those who want Russia to go has ever come up with any ideas or initiatives to give fresh impetus to the process.

Should the situation in Transnistria become part of “the worse for Russia, the better for us” geopolitical game? What about the Transnistrian people? Who will protect their rights? So, Moldova can make one step after another to get closer to the North Atlantic Alliance, buy weapons from bloc’s members and host NATO’s facilities on its soil. But Russian peacekeepers cannot stay in Transnistria despite the fact that it is done in strict compliance with the international obligations (the 1992 Agreement on the Principles for a Peaceful Settlement of the Armed Conflict) and the wish of Transnistrian people and government.

Moldova seldom hits media headlines but the situation there is another example of creeping NATO expansion. The US is in the process of establishing its military presence there to make American soldiers and Russian peacekeepers watch each other through gun sights. It’s sad, because Russia and Moldova have never seen each other as adversaries. Moldova, a neutral state, will inevitably become a target for Russia’s potential retaliatory strike.

The situation can be changed before it is too late. Moldova holds parliamentary elections in November. A new parliament may adopt a more responsible foreign policy to put the relationship between Moscow and Chisinau back on track to benefit all.

Rapid Trident is held on September 8-23 at the International Peacekeeping Security Centre near Yavoriv, Ukraine. It involves approximately 1,800 personnel from 14 nations, including Bulgaria, Canada, Estonia, Italy, Georgia, Lithuania, Moldova, Norway, Poland, Romania, Turkey, Ukraine, the UK and the US. The training event coincides with the war games known as «Zapad» (the West) to be held in in Belarus as well as in Russia′s Kaliningrad region and other north-western areas.

The president demands the resignation of Deputy Minister of Defence Gheorghe Galbura. He has ordered an investigation launched into the fact of insubordination. Igor Dodon says that as a neutral state Moldova should not take part in exercises of any bloc. The government’s action defies the country's legislation. The Constitutional Court of Moldova will be asked to pass a decision on the matter.

Actually, the Moldovan servicemen taking part in the exercise are deserters and should face trial. They went AWOL with their weapons. Ukraine welcomed the lawbreakers on its territory and even let them take part in the exercise! Those who defied the president’s order should face justice. It strikes the eye that nobody in the West has condemned the Moldovan government or the Defense Ministry’s officials giving illegal orders in flagrant violation of Moldovan law. Can anybody imagine the servicemen of leading NATO members openly refusing to carry out the orders and doing their own thing?

The conflict between the president and the government comes against the background of rising tensions in Moldova's breakaway region of Transnistria. In open defiance of President Dodon’s position, the government of Moldova has called on the United Nations to discuss the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers from the breakaway Transnistria region at the upcoming 72nd session of the General Assembly to open on September 12. Russia considers the Moldova’s letter to the United Nations as another hostile action.

In July, Igor Dodon condemned the parliament’s declaration on withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers, accusing the pro-Western lawmakers of trying to worsen relations with the Russian Federation. The parliamentary resolution was not approved unanimously. Transnistria’s legislators condemned the declaration. The Moldovan parliament failed to take into account the opinion of the people who live in Transnistria.

According to Moldovan MP Vladimir Tsurkan, the president will go straight to the people to make them rise in protest. The Socialist Party, which is enjoying the highest rating, will address the issue at the September 24 rally. The protests against the government violating  the national law may lead to snap election.

Victor Stepanyuk, the chairman of the National Socialist Party of Moldova, believes the government’s actions are a gross violation of the constitution. The rally organized by the Socialist Party may turn into massive protests. President Dodon has also said he could take people to the streets. He believes that the government wants to make the Moldovan military an informal part of NATO. He does not exclude the possibility of holding a referendum of turning Moldova into a presidential republic.

According to Prosperity Index 2015, Moldova is the poorest country in Europe. The World Bank believes that poverty in Moldova is widespread and endemic. With the observer status in the Eurasian Union (EAEU) granted in April, 2017, there are lucrative prospects for deepening trade and economic cooperation between Moldova and the EAEU within the concept of an «EU-EAEU common economic space». After all, the association agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova in force since 2014 does not exclude the possibility of creating a free trade zone between Moldova and third parties. Article 7 of the Eurasian Economic Union also provides for the possibility of establishing such free trade zones. It does not prevent the member states of the Union to sign other international agreements. Moldova stands to gain much by getting closer to Russia and the EAEU. The Moldovan people realize that. Nothing prevents their country from grabbing the promising opportunities.

According to the study conducted in June, 2017, in case of immediate parliamentary elections, 48, 2% of Moldovans would vote for the Socialists’ Party supporting its former leader Igor Dodon, while 26, 7% would vote for Maia Sandu’s Action and Solidarity Party (PAS). Other parties would get less than the required threshold. 38, 5% of Moldovan citizens trust Igor Dodon the most, followed by Maia Sandu (17, 3%). Other politicians like PM Pavel Filip could not get more than 3, 7% of people’s trust.

49% of Moldovans want a President with bigger power. Only 29% want a clearer separation of powers. In terms of foreign policy, 57% think Moldova should be closer to Russia and only 43% think it should closer to Europe and the West. Asked what they would for in a referendum, 48% of the respondents said they would vote for Moldova to join the Eurasian Economic Union. Only 40% would vote for joining the EU. Some 65% would vote against joining NATO, while 21% would vote for joining the military alliance.

The election victory of Igor Dodon in late 2016 shows the Moldovan people favor the development of good neighborly relations with Russia. The parliamentary elections scheduled in Moldova for autumn 2018 will play a crucial role. The Socialist Party has a good chance to strengthen its position in the parliament, increase its influence in Moldovan politics and turn the tide to improve the deteriorated Russo-Moldovan relations.

The West can turn a blind eye on the violation of the constitution in Moldova by its own government. The executive can take further steps to challenge Russia and get closer to NATO. The main thing is that this policy is not supported by the people of the country. The efforts will go down the drain and the provocative actions will not be productive. The only thing the pro-Western government can get is a snap election to make it a thing of the past.