Moldovan President Maia Sandu paid a working visit to Brussels on Wednesday, where she spoke from the rostrum of the European Parliament.

Before leaving for Europe, Sandu accepted the opening of a criminal case against ex-president Dodon and launched the process of suspending Moldova's work in key CIS bodies.

Now Moldovan delegations do not work in the Council of Heads of State, the Council of Heads of Government and the Council of Heads of Foreign Ministers of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Moldovans explain such a demarche in the CIS by the situation in Ukraine.

In turn, Moscow questioned the neutral status of Moldova, which is enshrined in its Constitution.

Appealing to the same neutrality, Maia Sandu, speaking to the deputies of the European Parliament, once again demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of the unrecognized Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.

It must be said that the withdrawal of a limited Russian contingent and the liquidation of military front-line warehouses in the Transnistrian village of Kolbasna in Moldova have been demanded for a long time, since the decision of the Istanbul OSCE summit in 2001.

Then they even began to take something out and dispose of something on the spot.

For example, they cut almost 200 brand new T-72 tanks with minimal mileage.

Well, as they cut it, the towers were removed.

And then a terrible picture of a field of decapitated Russian tanks near the Tiraspol airfield was replicated for a long time in the Western media.

And General Evnevich, the then commander of the OGRF, even received the highest Moldavian order from the President of Moldavia.

But times are changing.

And today Maia Sandu's theses in Brussels, which were later detailed at a meeting with the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell, look, to put it mildly, like an anti-Russian demarche.

The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Vice President of the European Commission, the one who demands to prevent a Russian victory in Ukraine, promised Sandu EU financial assistance to mitigate the consequences of the war in Ukraine and support for the recovery of the Moldovan economy after the pandemic.

Borrell also expressed support for the humanitarian efforts of the Republic of Moldova aimed at helping refugees from a neighboring country.

Maia Sandu was full of gratitude and requests: "Giving our country a European perspective would allow us to move faster along the path of democratic transformation with the support of our partners from Brussels."

All this Bessarabian pastoral is painted against the backdrop of the fatal fall of the Moldovan economy.

Over the past year, tariffs for gas and electricity have increased significantly.

Despite the fact that Russia, despite all the anti-Russian antics of the Moldovan rulers, does not stop supplying gas and electricity on rather favorable terms compared to European prices.

Nevertheless, the opposition predicts a new round of mass protests in Chisinau by autumn.

“We are in for a very difficult time, a very difficult period.

There may be such a situation that people simply explode themselves.

I think that the boiling point will be in the fall — “the perfect storm,” said ex-president Igor Dodon.

In turn, the Moldovan authorities do not see any other way to save the country, except by hook or by crook to join the European Union and live on European money.

“Moldova's EU membership would be the light at the end of this tunnel filled with difficulties.

We are a European country, with a European language, a European history and a European political system.

At least one third of us are already EU citizens,” Sandu says to the MEPs.

True, this same third are citizens of neighboring Romania, like Maya Grigoryevna herself, and almost all members of her cabinet.

And here a logical question arises: why do the EU need two Romanian countries?

The only logic to support the idea of ​​the movement of modern Moldova into the EU is the transformation of this poor state into another anti-Russia, following the example of neighboring Ukraine, with the prospect of unfreezing the Transnistrian conflict.

What, in fact, remains a serious obstacle to the Russian military presence in the form of the Operational Group of Russian Forces in Transnistria and a battalion of Russian peacekeepers under the mandate of the OSCE.

And if, in theory, the OSCE can revoke the mandate and this will end the peacekeeping mission, then the withdrawal of the OGRF depends entirely on the decisions of the top military-political leadership of Russia.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.