In Moldova, one of the leaders of the opposition party “Renaissance”, deputy Vasily Bolya, said that the overwhelming majority of the country’s citizens believe that “we need to be friends with Russia and not quarrel.” These are the data of opinion polls. People do not support the authorities’ pronounced anti-Russian course, which makes the country a pawn in a big geopolitical game.
A pawn is a consumable item, it does its job, distracts attention, and then it is sacrificed. Taking her interests into account? What is it about? That’s not why she’s on a big chessboard surrounded by important pieces.
So the Moldovan politician noted that the Chisinau authorities are consistently following the path of turning the country “into another enclave against Russia.” A puppet regime, flirting with nationalists and militarization are all components of this formatting of Moldova.
The prospects for this are all too well known—just look at neighboring Ukraine. It is clear that the victims of all this will be precisely the citizens of the country, who are drawn against their will into the game according to someone else’s rules, turning them into consumables.
The prospects for Moldova becoming a pawn in someone else’s combination emerged with the coming to power of Maia Sandu. She is known to be the leader of the Moldovan pro-Western elites, a citizen of Romania. He generously feeds the residents of Moldova with European integration cookies. The processing technology is simple: the West is light and prosperity, Russia is darkness and desolation. Therefore, we should turn away from it and direct our gaze to the Western civilizational light, and if necessary, if called upon, then at the first call we must turn against the darkness and act as a united and broad front for the sake of happiness and general prosperity. This is a simple but effective scheme if you voice it from morning to evening and do not give critical analysis.
But who, within the framework of such a mythology, will say that all these sunny prospects simply lead to absorption by Romania. And what about the independence and sovereignty that was so carefully treated and valued? Will we have to admit that it didn’t work out, or is independence just a liquid commodity that can be used profitably on occasion? So, after all, absorption is not all, it still needs to be earned by working in the role of that very pawn, that is, an anti-Russian enclave. And then goodbye to the current relative stability, peace and quiet. This is the eye of the needle of entry into the coveted paradise - or their mirage.
I remember that back in the summer of 2022, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that “they are clearly trying to make a second Ukraine out of Moldova.” Then the head of the Russian foreign policy department noted that “Europeans and Americans spend day and night in Moldova,” all in order to “imprison” Chisinau in an anti-Russian vein.”
Nobody refused such a “sharpening”; the “figure” continues to be prepared. The Sandu regime is trying. Why does he care about the opinions of the overwhelming majority of the country's citizens? Directives have been issued, Sandu is working. And what’s interesting is that the French Macron supervises and takes care of it. In the same 2022, he visited Chisinau and warmly welcomed the desire to strengthen the Moldovan army. Now plans to open a permanent defense mission in Chisinau, which will mainly train the Moldovan military. Where do they go next? Towards Ukraine or to ignite an internal fire?
At the same time, you can destabilize the country in two ways: to do this, it is enough to unfreeze the Transnistrian conflict and organize a confrontation in Gagauzia.
Bearing in mind Sandu’s course, observing Macron’s agility and the Ukrainian example at hand, there is something to worry about in Moldova. The country, in fact, has been turned into a hostage of geopolitical games; one more move in this direction and the victim status is guaranteed.
However, Moldova has been on a kind of swing all the way to its independence.
At one time it was already torn apart in the last Soviet years. At that time, the republican authorities boycotted the referendum on the USSR, and in Gagauzia and Transnistria almost the entire population voted for the preservation of the large country. This rift did not take long to affect itself, and the escalation of the conflict began. By the way, that armed confrontation taught us a lot, and a repetition was not allowed.
Moldova was balancing on a multi-vector approach. It was such a bright and, as practice has shown, largely a naive idea, characteristic of many countries of the former USSR. The prevailing opinion was that their geographical position at the junction of Europe and Russia is an advantage that allows them to conduct a normal dialogue with all parties, receiving benefits from both the European and Russian directions. And everything would have actually been like this if they hadn’t been forced to choose, if they hadn’t started to rip the living things out of Russia with an ultimatum. The idea of multi-vectorism collapsed, and the advantageous position itself became almost a curse.
And now the Moldovan authorities are crossing out this multi-vector approach, turning to an anti-Russian position, without taking into account the interests and opinions of the country’s citizens. And there the prospects for a “second Ukraine” clearly emerge. The West is deliberately provoking destabilization in the country in order to use Moldovans as cannon fodder. There are many interested in such a scenario: the “queen” Macron sleeps and sees, and in Romania they are anticipating territorial acquisitions, and Kyiv is eager to warm its hands and once again annoy Russia. The pro-Western Moldovan elites stand up and “whatever you want.” They just want to drink tea themselves, but as for the country, for the people, that’s a secondary and optional matter.
In Russia, this state of affairs is well understood. It is no coincidence that Vladimir Putin said that “we do not have unfriendly countries, we have unfriendly elites in these countries.” And by the way, this is not only a problem for us, but primarily for the citizens of these countries. A strange inertia has developed where the elites are often not attached to their country or perceive its interests in a very unique way. The leaders are not there with the people. However, all the rules on this chessboard come from one dogma: only the hegemon has interests, and one must follow them, everything else is just a means for realizing these interests.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editors.