Paraphrasing the great Colombian writer Gabriel García Márquez, we could begin our analysis of the developing situation in Moldova with the following quote: “Chronicle of a war foretold.”
The geopolitical parallels between the small republic east of the Carpathians and conflict-ridden Ukraine are so numerous that they allow us to ideally trace a new war front on the map of Europe, one that could explode between the Russian Federation and the overbearing Anglo-American expansionism led by NATO, which could collide in Transnistria.
The history of this strip of land between Moldova and Ukraine began in 1918, when the Directorate of Ukraine decided to proclaim its sovereignty over the left bank of the Dniester River. The region later became the Moldavian Autonomous Oblast within the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
In 1924, the entity was transformed into the Moldavian Autonomous Republic, with Balta as its capital. “The majority of the population was native Moldavian, and consequently, the language of most of the inhabitants was taught in schools, using the Cyrillic alphabet starting in 1940, when this alphabet was legally replaced by the Latin alphabet as the official alphabet in Moldavia.” Sudden changes, however, occurred during the Second World War. The Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, established on August 2, 1940, consisted of two parts: a large portion of Bessarabia (formerly a territory of the Tsarist Empire) and the western part of the pre-existing Moldavian Autonomous Republic.
During Operation Barbarossa, Romania, with the support of its German ally, quickly reconquered all the territory that Moldova had seized and then annexed the entire region between the Dniester and the Eastern Bug Rivers. Romania’s occupation strategy included the strategic city of Odessa. The Soviet Union regained all the territories in 1944. And according to Article 13 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution, the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic was one of the fifteen republics that made up the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
Under the Soviet Union, the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic was heavily Russified, and Cyrillic became the official script. The USSR’s industrial policies concentrated most of the country’s industries in Transnistria, while the part of Moldova west of the Dniester River maintained a predominantly agricultural economy. Not surprisingly, according to 1990 statistics, Transnistria accounted for 40% of Moldova’s GDP.
When the USSR began to crumble, Transnistria retained its industrial power, Europe’s largest arsenal, and the 14th Soviet Army, which was stationed in that area. Thus, after the Moldavian SSR parliament voted on its declaration of definitive independence from the Soviet Union on August 24, 1991, drawing on its arsenal, it achieved independence, which, however, was never recognized by many European countries. The subsequent declarations of independence by the federated republics of the USSR prompted Moldovan nationalism (favoring reunification with Romania) to promote their independence, sparking two secessionist movements in Transnistria and Gagauzia.
In the case of Gagauzia, a political solution was reached in 1995, not in Transnistria. The military path opened very quickly, primarily due to the presence of the Russian 14th Army stationed there. During the first half of 1992, military operations erupted between Moldovan and secessionist troops, with Russian support. The theoretical internal conflict, which began in 1990 with the creation of the Republic of Transnistria, had inevitable international ramifications involving Romania, Ukraine, and Russia. In July 1992, after more than 1,500 fatalities, the military dimension of the conflict ended. Its political/diplomatic dimension opened with the signing of the agreement on the principles of a peaceful resolution of the armed conflict in the Dniester region between the presidents of Moldova and Russia.
Since 2002, Russia has been committed to the creation of a federal Moldovan state, thus reuniting the two entities. In 2003, to implement its unification project, Moscow prepared a memorandum, which was published first in Russia and then on the website of the Transnistrian Foreign Ministry. The text was promoted by Dmitry Kozak, a prominent member of President Putin’s staff. However, it was not Transnistria that refused to sign it, but Moldova, and demonstrations against the memorandum erupted across the country. In 2005, as a diplomatic formula for overcoming the Transnistrian conflict, the so-called “5+2 process” was launched, involving Russia, Ukraine, the United States, the EU, and the OSCE, as well as the Republic of Moldova and the “in fact” authorities of the sovereign region of Transnistria. Following the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the 5+2 process has stalled.
Russia’s position on Transnistria has changed with the start of operations in Ukraine. This region, like Gagauzia, is very close to Russia culturally, ideologically, and linguistically. The situation in the two areas is very similar to that of Donbass. Furthermore, strategically, as stated by several sources, Russia has targeted southern Ukraine since the beginning of the invasion, precisely to reach Transnistria. In this historical and cultural context, the war in Ukraine has exacerbated the two tendencies that coexist in Moldova: the pro-European Union one of the liberal Action and Solidarity Party of current President Maia Sandu, and the culturally pro-Russian one of Gagauzia and Transnistria. In Gagauzia, Gagauz and Russian are spoken, while in Transnistria, Moldovan, Russian and Ukrainian with Cyrillic, not Latin, script. The Lithuanian and Latvian experiences of banning Russian speakers from speaking Russian, a practice permitted by the EU, certainly do not set an example for the Gagauz and Transnistrian people. Furthermore, if Moldova were to join the EU, Gagauzia could invoke the clause that would trigger secession from the central state entity in the event of a positive referendum result.
Added to this is the fact that Moldova is on the brink of an institutional crisis, facing one of the worst periods of instability in its history. The country’s current leader, Maia Sandu, is the president-elect of Europe’s poorest country. A dual Romanian-American citizen, she divides her time equally between Chisinau and California, where she owns several properties.
Sandu trained at the ultra-liberal Moldovan Academy of Economic Studies, then continued her studies at the John F. Kennedy School of Political Management at Harvard University and became a personal advisor to the director of the World Bank.
Her meteoric rise to power, culminating in her assumption of the highest office in the Moldovan state in 2020, was entirely supported by the American apparatus and, most notably, by George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. From 2012 to 2015, she served as Minister of Culture, then launched her own platform, the Action and Solidarity Party, on which she was elected.
Interestingly, on February 21, 2019, Sandu and the candidates of the ACUM electoral bloc, both in the national and single-member constituencies, signed a public pledge stating that, after the February 24, 2019, parliamentary elections, they would not form any coalition with the Socialist Party, the Democratic Party, and the Shor Party, and that if this pledge was violated, they would resign from parliament. Naturally, Sandu violated this self-imposed pledge after agreeing to form a coalition government with the Socialist Party in early June 2019 as the only way forward to establish a legitimate and democratic government.
Sandu has met several times and publicly thanked representatives of the Open Society Foundations responsible for Europe and Central Asia, and under the leadership of the Soros Foundation of Moldova. A landmark meeting was held on the occasion of the organization’s 30th anniversary in the country, on October 12, 2022. One of the battles in which Ms. Sandu has been at the forefront is the promotion of LGBTQ values and same-sex marriage (being a lesbian herself), in a strongly Orthodox and conservative country where the vast majority of the population openly opposes these educational innovations introduced and overseen in schools by foreign NGOs: French, German, and American.
His positions favor Moldova’s close integration into the European Union, its entry as a new member of NATO, and the severance of diplomatic relations with Moscow. The incumbent Moldovan government has established a kind of pro-EU dictatorial regime, persecuting the political opposition, from former Prime Minister Igor Dodon (a communist and later socialist) to Gagauzia’s governor, Evghenia Guţul, accused of illegally financing the Shor party (declared unconstitutional in 2023). Guţul was arrested while boarding a flight to Istanbul.
The “rainbow autocrat” in Chisinau has also shut down all Russian broadcasters nationwide, banned Victory Day celebrations and the wearing of the St. George ribbon, and continues a clever campaign to liquidate the opposition: the latest prominent victim is the Victory Party, ousted from the upcoming elections. The national law on the protection of information is the shield behind which his majority protects itself, allowing it to pass liberticidal and increasingly restrictive laws against its own population, which cannot even dissent; despite empty, unfulfilled promises to eliminate cronyism and corruption.
There are striking chronological similarities with the Ukrainian constitutional and legislative reforms that followed the 2014 Maidan coup. Despite being a constitutionally “neutral” country (as was Ukraine before the post-coup constitutional reform), NATO’s penetration of the small state is unstoppable. In October 2023, military maneuvers by American and Moldovan airborne forces were organized on the border between Romania and Ukraine; and recently, the Moldovan Ministry of Defense announced that the military exercise Fire Shield – 2025 will take place on its territory from August 4 to 18, 2025, with the participation of the armed forces of the United States and Romania, both NATO members.
The permanent presence of military instructors and Sandu’s recent statements that the country’s neutrality status could be overcome to allow full membership in the Euro-Atlantic bloc represent further small steps towards the opening of a new war front against the Russian Federation.
The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has accused NATO of gradually transforming Moldova into a military outpost on the Alliance’s eastern flank, a further sign of growing tension between Moscow and the West. According to the SVR, the modernization of Moldova’s strategic infrastructure, from airports to railways, would be instrumental in rapidly deploying troops towards Russia’s borders.
This thesis is also supported by Ralph Bosshard, former military advisor to the OSCE Secretary General and a retired Swiss lieutenant colonel, who told the Russian news agency TASS: “NATO is preparing Moldova for a strategic military role, in anticipation of Ukraine’s loss of control of its Black Sea coastline.” Bosshard stated that NATO and the EU’s growing involvement in Moldova indicates a belief that Kiev is no longer capable of defending Ukraine’s southern areas, particularly the Yedisan and Budzhak regions near Odessa, which, according to the analyst, “will sooner or later pass to Russia”.
Bosshard emphasizes that using Moldova as a bridgehead against Moscow only makes sense if Brussels considers Ukraine’s hold in the south to be compromised. According to the analyst, this is the reason behind the push to militarize Moldova, a historically neutral country.
In the simulations of Atlanticist think tanks (so-called war games), one of the scenarios envisaged in the event of Russian troops advancing on Odessa would have been the invasion of Transnistria by a coalition of Romanian, Moldovan, and American troops, with the subsequent occupation of the Kalbasna weapons depot and the creation of a federal union between Moldova and Romania. In the latter state, we see a similar scenario, with elections annulled due to alleged, unproven electoral manipulation, and candidates like Călin Georgescu and George Simion arrested, threatened, and described as neo-fascist fanatics simply for demanding sovereignty and preventing the country from turning into a giant NATO military base.
It is worth remembering that Romania hosts the largest NATO base, Mihail Kogalniceanu, near Constanta on the Black Sea, and will be able to accommodate a total of 10,000 civilians and military personnel by 2030.
A further shakeup to the fragile balance of power in the small state was felt in November 2024. Maia Sandu, a pro-European, managed to win the presidential runoff against Alexandr Stoianoglo, a pro-Russian, obtaining 55.41% of the vote, against her opponent’s 44.59%. It should be noted, however, that the latter had been clearly ahead in the first round with 42.49%.
The release of the final results by the Central Election Commission of the vote for Alexandru Stoianoglorno’s second presidential election allows us to better focus on one – or perhaps the main – element that characterized this round of elections: the influence of the votes of Moldovans living in Western Europe on the final outcome of the competition.
In this runoff, voters residing in Moldova chose the Socialist candidate Alexandru Stoianoglo, who won 51.1% of the vote. Maia Sandu’s victory came from the diaspora: among the emigrants, the outgoing president—who was later re-elected—received 82.7%.
Interestingly, the country, plagued by unemployment and low wages, has an expatriate population of approximately 1.5 million citizens. Eighty percent of these Moldovan expatriates reside in the Russian Federation, while the remaining 20 percent have chosen to emigrate to the European Union and the United Kingdom.
In Russia, only two polling stations were set up at the Moldovan consulate and embassy in Moscow, and only 12,000 ballots were delivered to allow for remote voting. Meanwhile, in Europe, 500,000 ballots were sent for a total population of Moldovans living abroad of around 300,000. The manipulation of the referendum is blatant, and Sandu’s confirmation was a colossal farce, defying every supposed democratic value.
Russia, for its part, has begun to respond to Moldova’s diplomatic aggression (a NATO puppet) by revoking Decree 605 of 2012, the document in which the Kremlin, outlining its foreign policy guidelines, guaranteed Moldova’s independence and territorial integrity. Mr. Lavrov issued clear warnings through his Foreign Ministry, declaring: “The United States, European countries, and their Ukrainian militiamen should know that any action against Transnistria, Russian soldiers, and the Kalbasna base will be considered an attack on Russia itself, which will respond accordingly”.
Another point of contention between the former socialist republic and Moscow was the signing of an association treaty with the EU in June 2024. This free trade agreement opens the European Union market to Moldovan products. It is a prelude to Moldova’s accession to the European Union, as it provides “the basis for close political association and economic integration with the EU”.
It’s also a replay of the Ukraine crisis, another battle in the trade war the EU has decided to wage against Russia and at the expense of European citizens. The first to be further impoverished were the Moldovans themselves, as most of Moldova’s agricultural and wine exports went to the Russian Federation, which responded by imposing heavy sanctions on meat and fruit.
The current situation is alarming: over 54,000 jobs have been lost in Moldova over the past year, the unemployment rate is rising, and emigration has become the only option for young people. High inflation and limited access to education and healthcare complete a worrying picture for citizens. Taxation of remittances from abroad, under the guise of combating money laundering, also significantly limits support for residents from those forced to emigrate.
In this context, the support of the diasporas, which have become a decisive factor in determining the country’s future, for a government whose policies are forcing more and more Moldovans to leave the country seems paradoxical. According to a recent poll by the IMAS institute, as many as 81% of citizens believe the country is controlled from outside. The statement by NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska, who stated that the Alliance will not allow Russia to influence Moldova’s elections, speaks volumes about open Western interference in the upcoming elections.
Moldova already has all the makings of becoming the next “Ukraine,” and Brussels bureaucrats, representatives of financial cartels and stateless plutocratic elites, intend to sacrifice more lives to the globalist “Moloch.” The trigger for the next conflict about to explode in the heart of Europe has already been activated, and it is hoped that an unexpected diplomatic meeting between President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin could defuse the escalation of the conflict, which is assuming ever-increasing proportions and dragging the whole of Eurasia into a never-ending spiral of war.
