Politics
Melik Kaylan: Moscow, Leave Moldova Alone
Reading Time: 5 minutesThis time its Moldova. Whenever Moscows former vassal states sputter and crackle with instability, the wheezy old Cold War moral equivalency argument gets a new airing.
By Melik Kaylan
This time it’s Moldova. Whenever Moscow’s former vassal states sputter and crackle with instability, the wheezy old Cold War "moral equivalency" argument gets a new airing. Russia invaded Georgia? Well, didn’t the U.S. invade Iraq? Russia sent warships to Cuba? That’s because the U.S. is pushing its NATO borders up into Poland and Georgia.
Moscow’s near-abroad satellites such as Abkhazia and even Belarus are "black holes" of corruption and racketeering? So look at Mexico and its drug gangs. And democracy? Don’t go there–remember the first election of George W. Bush.
And now Moldova, a wobbly post-Soviet entity landlocked between Romania and Ukraine, has once again become a pawn in Russia’s game. The Russkies have been kicking the territory around since the czars conquered it in 1812. For a while the czars called it Bessarabia. It became the Moldovian SSR under the Soviets.
Chunks of the territory got traded back and forth to Romania and Ukraine. When the USSR collapsed, Russia lost control and direct geographical contact because the intervening territory of Ukraine became annoyingly independent too. So the Russians destabilized Moldova by inciting separatists to carve out the breakaway region of Transnistria–a precise mirror of Moscow’s strategy in Georgia’s Abkhaz and South Ossetian regions, and in many other ex-satellites. Moscow’s message? You break away from us, we break you apart.
On April 5, the Moldovans went to the polls. It appeared that they chose to re-elect the Communist party with a nearly 50% of the votes. The opposition parties cried foul and the ensuing demonstrations turned to riots and arson. The parliament and presidential palace were ransacked.
Widespread claims of election fraud floated about, including charges that 400,000 bogus ballots of voters who were either dead or living abroad had been counted. A recount was announced, but the opposition parties boycotted the process because they argued that recounting fake ballots would produce the same results.
Meanwhile, police had savagely attacked protesters, killing some and hospitalizing others. Moldova’s Communist president accused Romania of meddling in Moldavan affairs and trying to reverse the democratic process by inciting the opposition. The opposition, for its part, accused the government of planting agents provocateurs in their midst whose violent actions allowed the police to intervene without restraint in order to, in the words of the Interior Ministry, "prevent civil war."
It’s possible to argue that the original election result was legitimate, and that Moldovans simply can’t get enough of Communism and that old-time Russkie bondage. They did, after all, elect the Communist Party into power in 2005–the first post-Soviet entity to do so voluntarily.
Or did they? Nobody quite knows what went on during the prior elections; nobody was watching that closely. But that the outcome should even be close in favor of Communist sentiment tells you that in Moldova, as in Ukraine and even in Georgia, indeed throughout large parts of the post-Soviet sphere, there endures plenty of nostalgia for the old Soviet system, its dubious stability and certainties.
This is where, to an unforgivable degree, we in the West have given equivalency-mongers too much to work with. In the Clinton era, the West watched impassively as command economy systems unraveled into chaos, having promised them for decades that happiness lay through democracy and transparency and open markets.
In the Bush era, the "Color Revolutions" re-infused some vigor into pro-Western ideals, but this time the Iraq project so boosted oil prices worldwide that Russia could play the West’s game just as effectively by flooding money into pro-Moscow movements and backing sympathetic think tanks, oligarchs and media moguls who bought up swaths of near-abroad industries just as the West had intended to do.
Now the equivalency principle is back with a vengeance. Georgia has just undergone mass protests to unseat its pro-U.S. president, Mikheil Saakashvili. When the Georgians quite rightly point to Moscow’s hand in Georgian unrest, Moldova’s Communist president points to Romania’s hand in the recent post-election furor.
Romania, you might ask? How on earth did Romania gather the leverage to destabilize a foreign state? Since it joined the European Union in January 2007, it has became an agent of the anti-Moscow Manichean universe, or so one pro-Communist argument goes. Pro-E.U. sentiment exists in Moldova, and even motivates activists to organize. So why shouldn’t pro-Moscow activists do the same?
Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, the Moscow-centric worldview gets an all-too-sympathetic hearing among Western apologists who believe in Russia’s right to revive its sphere of hegemony for no reason other than that they believe the U.S. has such a sphere. What other reason could they have for consigning a swath of the world to Moscow’s mercies?
And equally in the post-Soviet sphere, why would so many people turn away from the West and vote for Communist and Socialist parties led by old apparatchiks? Their arguments are never systematically pro-anything. Everybody knows where that radical route leads and has led in the past. But in an unstable world, stability equals Stalinist law and order, and the familiar, navigable world of crony socialism.
Command economies deliver immediate relief from hunger and happenstance. Above all, they steer away from the scary contingency-ridden world of endless work, market oscillations and shiny American artifacts and promises.
So why not regress to the protective womb of a Moscow-orchestrated past-with-no-future? If the sins are equal on both sides, what distinguishes one side from the other? In recent days, for example, Azerbaijan has held talks with Russia to revive their relationship because Turkey is making moves to befriend Armenia. Azerbaijan threatens to reroute its oil and gas supplies to Europe through Russia rather than Turkey.
In this Faustian pact between Baku and Moscow, one wants to ask, what does the glowing future look like for Baku, or for any other Russia-dependent former satellite? In Baku’s case, the Russians will simply use Azerbaijani fuels to pressure Europe into submission–then turn around and put the screws back on a Baku now deprived of European moral support. What’s the payoff here for the Azeris, or for pro-Moscow Moldovans, Abkhazians, South Ossetians or Armenians?
One shouldn’t dismiss the equivalency arguments out of hand, however flawed, because so many believe in them and because Moscow deploys them so consistently. Remember Medvedev’s post-Georgia invasion "major foreign-policy speech," in which he suggested that Moscow was saving everyone from a unipolar world, that it was delivering bipolarity selflessly to world as a gift?
For bipolarity read equivalency. Let us, for the sake of argument, hold our noses and simply grant that equation up front–that Moscow’s actions abroad are no better or worse than America’s. Why not fall back into Moscow’s embrace? Georgia has almost a million expatriates working in the Russian zone, and there are almost as many Moldovans doing so. They all speak Russian. So where’s the problem?
This may sound like an absurdly empty rhetorical question, but bear with it. In the post-Soviet era, we have too arrogantly and mistakenly believed that we won the argument for good and all, that there’s no need to persuade anyone anymore. We have made this assumption most self-defeatingly in the Islamic world, allowing all manner of bearded droners, secular Arab nationalists and croaky old anti-imperialists to outmaneuver us ideologically.
In Iraq, it took almost two years before we had an effective pro-U.S. broadcast entity, Al Hurrah, and it took another year before anyone listened to it. In the post-Soviet sphere, we have stopped actively countering pro-Moscow ideologies, meeting the arguments point for point as we never failed to do throughout the Cold War.
So why choose our side? Here let us think concretely of Moldova’s benighted populace and others like them, struggling to think clearly after all the centuries of Russkie intrigue. Say it aloud and clearly over and over, so it becomes an easily communicable mantra: What has Moscow ever delivered in terms of happiness to any dependent peoples in its sphere?
Dear old Russkies, you who have given the world so much in the way of consolation for the human condition, Chekhov and Bulgakov and Pushkin and Rachmaninov and so much else, it’s time to let go of Empire. Forget the U.S. threat, forget NATO and the E.U. and equivalency–all those excuses for plying the path of barbarism. Nobody is out to destroy you. As a political and strategic force you have wrought nothing but misery. Let the Moldovans go.
—
Melik Kaylan, a writer based in New York, writes a weekly column for Forbes.com. His story "Georgia In The Time of Misha" is featured in The Best American Travel Writing 2008.
Featured
FC Sheriff Tiraspol victory: can national pride go hand in hand with political separatism?

A new football club has earned a leading place in the UEFA Champions League groups and starred in the headlines of worldwide football news yesterday. The Football Club Sheriff Tiraspol claimed a win with the score 2-1 against Real Madrid on the Santiago Bernabeu Stadium in Madrid. That made Sheriff Tiraspol the leader in Group D of the Champions League, including the football club in the groups of the most important European interclub competition for the first time ever.
International media outlets called it a miracle, a shock and a historic event, while strongly emphasizing the origin of the team and the existing political conflict between the two banks of the Dniester. “Football club from a pro-Russian separatist enclave in Moldova pulls off one of the greatest upsets in Champions League history,” claimed the news portals. “Sheriff crushed Real!” they said.
Moldovans made a big fuss out of it on social media, splitting into two groups: those who praised the team and the Republic of Moldova for making history and those who declared that the football club and their merits belong to Transnistria – a problematic breakaway region that claims to be a separate country.
Both groups are right and not right at the same time, as there is a bunch of ethical, political, social and practical matters that need to be considered.
Is it Moldova?
First of all, every Moldovan either from the right or left bank of Dniester (Transnistria) is free to identify himself with this achievement or not to do so, said Vitalie Spranceana, a sociologist, blogger, journalist and urban activist. According to him, boycotting the football club for being a separatist team is wrong.
At the same time, “it’s an illusion to think that territory matters when it comes to football clubs,” Spranceana claimed. “Big teams, the ones included in the Champions League, have long lost their connection both with the countries in which they operate, and with the cities in which they appeared and to which they linked their history. […] In the age of globalized commercial football, teams, including the so-called local ones, are nothing more than global traveling commercial circuses, incidentally linked to cities, but more closely linked to all sorts of dirty, semi-dirty and cleaner cash flows.”
What is more important in this case is the consistency, not so much of citizens, as of politicians from the government who have “no right to celebrate the success of separatism,” as they represent “the national interests, not the personal or collective pleasures of certain segments of the population,” believes the political expert Dionis Cenusa. The victory of FC Sheriff encourages Transnistrian separatism, which receives validation now, he also stated.
“I don’t know how it happens that the “proud Moldovans who chose democracy”, in their enthusiasm for Sheriff Tiraspol’s victory over Real Madrid, forget the need for total and unconditional withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria!” declared the journalist Vitalie Ciobanu.
Nowadays, FC Sheriff Tiraspol has no other choice than to represent Moldova internationally. For many years, the team used the Moldovan Football Federation in order to be able to participate in championships, including international ones. That is because the region remains unrecognised by the international community. However, the club’s victory is presented as that of Transnistria within the region, without any reference to the Republic of Moldova, its separatist character being applied in this case especially.
Is it a victory?
In fact, FC Sheriff Tiraspol joining the Champions League is a huge image breakthrough for the Transnistrian region, as the journalist Madalin Necsutu claimed. It is the success of the Tiraspol Club oligarchic patrons. From the practical point of view, FC Sheriff Tiraspol is a sports entity that serves its own interests and the interests of its owners, being dependent on the money invested by Tiraspol (but not only) oligarchs.
Here comes the real dilemma: the Transnistrian team, which is generously funded by money received from corruption schemes and money laundering, is waging an unequal fight with the rest of the Moldovan football clubs, the journalist also declared. The Tiraspol team is about to raise 15.6 million euro for reaching the Champions League groups and the amounts increase depending on their future performance. According to Necsutu, these money will go directly on the account of the club, not to the Moldovan Football Federation, creating an even bigger gab between FC Sheriff and other football clubs from Moldova who have much more modest financial possibilities.
“I do not see anything useful for Moldovan football, not a single Moldovan player is part of FC Sheriff Tiraspol. I do not see anything beneficial for the Moldovan Football Federation or any national team.”
Is it only about football?
FC Sheriff Tiraspol, with a total estimated value of 12.8 million euros, is controlled by Victor Gusan and Ilya Kazmala, being part of Sheriff Holding – a company that controls the trade of wholesale, retail food, fuels and medicine by having monopolies on these markets in Transnistria. The holding carries out car trading activities, but also operates in the field of construction and real estate. Gusan’s people also hold all of the main leadership offices in the breakaway region, from Parliament to the Prime Minister’s seat or the Presidency.
The football club is supported by a holding alleged of smuggling, corruption, money laundering and organised crime. Moldovan media outlets published investigations about the signals regarding the Sheriff’s holding involvement in the vote mobilization and remuneration of citizens on the left bank of the Dniester who participated in the snap parliamentary elections this summer and who were eager to vote for the pro-Russian socialist-communist bloc.
Considering the above, there is a great probability that the Republic of Moldova will still be represented by a football club that is not identified as being Moldovan, being funded from obscure money, growing in power and promoting the Transnistrian conflict in the future as well.
Photo: unknown
Politics
Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilita meets high-ranking EU officials in Brussels

Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova, Natalia Gavrilita, together with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicu Popescu, pay an official visit to Brussels, between September 27-28, being invited by High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell Fontelles.
Today, Prime Minister had a meeting with Charles Michel, President of the European Council. The Moldovan PM thanked the senior European official for the support of the institution in strengthening democratic processes, reforming the judiciary and state institutions, economic recovery and job creation, as well as increasing citizens’ welfare. Natalia Gavrilita expressed her confidence that the current visit laid the foundations for boosting relations between the Republic of Moldova and the European Union, so that, in the next period, it would be possible to advance high-level dialogues on security, justice and energy. Officials also exchanged views on priorities for the Eastern Partnership Summit, to be held in December.
“The EU is open to continue to support the Republic of Moldova and the ambitious reform agenda it proposes. Moldova is an important and priority partner for us,” said Charles Michel.
Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilita also met with Paolo Gentiloni, European Commissioner for Economy, expressing her gratitude for the support received through the OMNIBUS macro-financial assistance program. The two officials discussed the need to advance the recovery of money from bank fraud, to strengthen sustainable mechanisms for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises in Moldova, and to standardize the customs and taxes as one of the main conditions for deepening cooperation with the EU in this field.
Additionally, Prime Minister spoke about the importance of the Eastern Partnership and the Deep Free Trade Agreement, noting that the Government’s policies are aimed at developing an economic model aligned with the European economic model, focused on digitalization, energy efficiency and the green economy.
A common press release of the Moldovan Prime Minister with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission, Josep Borrell Fontelles, took place today, where the agenda of Moldova’s reforms and the main priorities to focus on in the coming months were presented: judiciary reform; fighting COVID-19 pandemic; promoting economic recovery and conditions for growth and job creation; strengthening state institutions and resilience of the country.
“I am here to relaunch the dialogue between my country and the European Union. Our partnership is strong, but I believe there is room for even deeper cooperation and stronger political, economic and sectoral ties. I am convinced that this partnership is the key to the prosperity of our country and I hope that we will continue to strengthen cooperation.”
The Moldovan delegation met Didier Reynders, European Commissioner for Justice. Tomorrow, there are scheduled common meetings with Oliver Varhelyi, European Commissioner for Neighborhood and Enlargement, Adina Valean, European Commissioner for Transport and Kadri Simson, European Commissioner for Energy.
Prime Minister will also attend a public event, along with Katarina Mathernova, Deputy Director-General for Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations.
Photo: gov.md
Politics
Promo-LEX about Maia Sandu’s UN speech: The president must insist on appointing a rapporteur to monitor the situation of human rights in Transnistria

The President of the Republic of Moldova, Maia Sandu, pays an official visit to New York, USA, between September 21-22. There, she participates in the work of the United Nations General Assembly. According to a press release of the President’s Office, the official will deliver a speech at the tribune of the United Nations.
In this context, the Promo-LEX Association suggested the president to request the appointment of a special rapporteur in order to monitor the situation of human rights in the Transnistrian region. According to Promo-LEX, the responsibility for human rights violations in the Transnistrian region arises as a result of the Russian Federation’s military, economic and political control over the Tiraspol regime.
“We consider it imperative to insist on the observance of the international commitments assumed by the Russian Federation regarding the withdrawal of the armed forces and ammunition from the territory of the country,” the representatives of Promo-LEX stated. They consider the speech before the UN an opportunity “to demand the observance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the Russian Federation with reference to this territory which is in its full control.”
“It is important to remember about the numerous cases of murder, torture, ill-treatment, forced enlistment in illegal military structures, the application of pseudo-justice in the Transnistrian region, all carried out under the tacit agreement of the Russian Federation. These findings stem from dozens of rulings and decisions issued by the European Court of Human Rights, which found that Russia is responsible for human rights violations in the region.”
The association representatives expressed their hope that the president of the country would give priority to issues related to the human rights situation in the Transnistrian region and would call on relevant international actors to contribute to guaranteeing fundamental human rights and freedoms throughout Moldova.
They asked Maia Sandu to insist on the observance of the obligation to evacuate the ammunition and the military units of the Russian Federation from the territory of the Republic of Moldova, to publicly support the need for the Russian Federation to implement the ECtHR rulings on human rights violations in the Transnistrian region, and to request the appointment of an UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur to monitor the human rights situation in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova.
**
The Promo-LEX Association concluded that 14 out of 25 actions planned within the National Action Plan for the years 2018–2022 concerning respecting human rights in Transnistria were not carried out by the responsible authorities.
The association expressed its concern and mentioned that there are a large number of delays in the planned results. “There is a lack of communication and coordination between the designated institutions, which do not yet have a common vision of interaction for the implementation of the plan.”
Promo-LEX requested the Government of the Republic of Moldova to re-assess the reported activities and to take urgent measures, “which would exclude superficial implementation of future activities and increase the level of accountability of the authorities.”
Photo: peacekeeping.un.org