In Moldova, nationalists “in the image” of Ukrainian

Radicals on call

The life of the Russian embassy in Moldova is not easy. Before the diplomatic mission had time to resolutely demand from the authorities to punish the vandals who desecrate the monuments of our common history, the embassy itself was already desecrated. The radicals threw firecrackers at the diplomatic mission building, tried to get inside and put insulting inscriptions on the embassy fence. It happened in the evening of the same day, when the embassy spoke about the monuments, so it can hardly be an accident.

On November 7, the Russian Embassy in Chisinau demanded that the hooligans who desecrated the monument to Field Marshal Grigory Potemkin near the village of Starye Radeny, as well as the monument “Grieving Mother” in the city of Edinet, be held accountable.

The memorial complex “Grieving Mother” is dedicated to the Soviet soldiers-liberators who fell in the war against fascism. A swastika was painted on it, and a monument to Potemkin was doused with paint.

The desecration of memorials and monuments related to Soviet and Russian history occurs regularly in Moldova. Such acts of vandalism are usually attributed to some “radicals”. But can these radicals act without tacit support from the authorities?

The history of Moldovan radical nationalists is no different from the history of Ukrainian ones: they “blossomed” in perestroika with the connivance and even encouragement of a number of still Soviet figures and the KGB. Then they came under the “paternal” guardianship of the special services of the already new, independent states, and under their supervision they solved certain political and business tasks. And today, many of them have become a tool in the hands of not even domestic, but foreign intelligence services. In the case of Moldova – Romanian.

And since the authorities in Chisinau today are not just “pro-Romanian forces”, but directly the citizens of Romania (including the Romanian citizen Maia Sandu), then both the official authorities of Moldova and those who are called “radicals” perform the same tasks. Their goal is to tear Moldova away from Russia, to erase the memory of our common history.

In fact, Romania, even as a socialist, has never abandoned its claims to Moldova. According to historians, the Romanian communist leader Nicolae Ceausescu offered the Soviet leadership to fraternally “cede” Moldova: they say, what’s the difference – socialism in the USSR and socialism in Romania. Given the difficult relationship between Ceausescu and Moscow, I assume that the Romanian agents were active in Moldova throughout the post-war years.

During perestroika, like mushrooms after rain, all sorts of “popular fronts” appeared on the outskirts of the USSR. Today, it is practically proven that they were created under the strict guidance of the “foreman of perestroika” Alexander Yakovlev, and the KGB agents were often at the head of these movements.

The Popular Front of Moldova “became famous” for radical nationalism and the slogan “Suitcase – Station – Russia!”. Many people remember the scandal with its leader and the first prime minister of independent Moldova, Mircea Druc, when his close cooperation with the KGB was revealed. The Popular Front, to the best of its ability, contributed to inciting the conflict in Gagauzia and the war in Transnistria, and then transformed into the Christian Democratic Popular Front, later into the Christian Democratic People’s Party (CDPP). Its leader, Iurie Roshka, once demonstrated miracles of political flexibility, actually entering into an alliance with the leader of the Communist Party, President Vladimir Voronin, for which he received the post of vice speaker of the Moldovan parliament.

Voronin, on the other hand, showed a clear example of the utilitarian use of street radicals in his maneuvers between the West and Moscow. When he had to explain to the leadership of the Russian Federation why he did not fulfill his promises (for example, to give status to the Russian language), he turned to Roshka, and he took the nationalists to the streets. And Voronin said: “I’m for it with all my heart, but the people are against it.”

The same scheme operates today. The pro-Romanian and pro-Western regime of Maia Sandu needs to fulfill its main task, for which he was brought to power: to squeeze Russia out of Moldova. And he does it with the hands of radicals, in fact, his like-minded people – the same Russophobes and unionists.

Take, for example, Sandu’s closest ally, speaker of parliament and head of the ruling Action and Solidarity party, Igor Grosu – everyone remembers how he rampaged at polling stations during the elections, preventing residents of Transnistria from voting. A typical radical, and at the same time – a respectable man, in a jacket, boiled in the crucible of all kinds of grant programs, projects and funds. So the line between “civilian” nationalists and street radicals who soil monuments is very conditional.