Pundit says Moldovan authorities do not consider Moldova-Romania unification scenario Victor Josu answers Caliber.Az questions

Caliber.Az had an interview with Victor Josu, a Moldovan political analyst and editor-in-chief of Traditia.md.

- In your opinion, Victor, what made the Moldovan government impose the ban on the broadcasting of six Russian-language television channels in the country? What consequences can this step have in Moldova itself?

- The decision to ban the six television channels (formally, to suspend their broadcasting licences) was taken by the Commission on Emergency Situations within the framework of the state of emergency in Moldova. In other words, it was not even a decision of the Broadcasting Coordinating Council (BCC) and certainly not a court decision as noticed by lawyers and human rights advocates. Although the legal side of the case (and not only in this matter) has ceased to play a role here. Since February 24, 2022, simultaneously with the beginning of a large-scale war in Ukraine, the parliament of Moldova declared a state of emergency on the territory of the country and since then it is automatically prolonged every 60 days. It has completely untied hands of the authorities. Under the state of emergency, President Maia Sandu and the Action and Solidarity Party, of which she remains the informal leader, believe that they can rule as they wish and restrict or prohibit anything without regard to the Constitution and laws.

The disconnection of six TV channels has given rise to various interpretations. There was talk of banning freedom of speech and of infringing on the interests of the Russian-speaking population, which is certainly the case. But the comments from the authorities were of a different nature. For example, Liliana Vitsu, the chairperson of the above-mentioned council, forced to justify the decision of the Extraordinary Commission, to whose meeting she was not even invited, went as far as to say that the six TV channels were "engaged in propaganda for war through silence". The fact is that they did not broadcast the war content provided by the pro-governmental TV channels (the latter took it from Ukrainian TV channels and translated it into Romanian), but they did not broadcast Russian news and analytical content either - this has been banned in Moldova for several years. Each of these channels simply tried, if possible, to avoid information about military activities in a neighbouring country, concentrating on what is happening in our country. In the end, this is what they were accused of. I stress that these were not even opposition channels; they simply broadcast a different point of view on events in Moldova, different from that of the ruling party.

I would take a broader view of our entire situation, and not only with regard to broadcasting. By granting the Republic of Moldova the status of an EU candidate, we were in fact obliged to follow the common American-European general line in everything, including foreign and domestic policy, security policy, and, of course, information policy. The old pluralism is over, everybody has to keep up. Hungary (NATO member, EU member) or Türkiye (NATO member, EU candidate), with their strong leaders and majority support, may still stray from the mainstream on occasion, but not the others. There is nothing to say about such a weak state as Moldova, financially and politically dependent on the USA and the EU, especially under a government that is oriented exclusively towards the West. In some ways, we are implementing the Ukrainian scenario of combating dissent, and in some ways the scenario of the Baltic States. In Ukraine, a number of TV channels and opposition parties were banned even before February 24. Although the opposition still nominally exists in Moldova, our authorities are seriously considering options for banning undesirable parties, first of all, the Shor party which may resume protest actions in spring. We can say that we have turned from the path of liberal democracy (which we have been following for the last thirty years, though limping badly) into a kind of "liberal totalitarianism".

Such political deviation can be observed to a greater or lesser extent throughout Europe, but while in the west of the continent, where democratic traditions are strong, it is difficult to impose dictatorial methods, in the post-Soviet space there are virtually no obstacles to this. Our fragmented society will not be able to offer any organised resistance to this trend.

- Are the Russian-Moldavian relations so bad at the moment?

- Formally they are maintained, no one recalls the ambassadors, and the diplomatic missions are not closed. But Moldova follows the Western mainstream and today it is anti-Russian by definition.

- Did Moldova declare the termination of relations with the Russian leadership for this reason?

- President Maia Sandu expressed herself somewhat differently, she said that she had nothing to talk about with the leadership of the aggressor country. But as she didn't have such relations from the very beginning of her coming to power, there is nothing to stop. And she had made statements of this kind before, as a reaction to the calls of some part of the Moldovan society to go and negotiate an acceptable gas price with the leadership of the Russian Federation.

My explanation for this behaviour is simple: Mrs. Sandu is a pathological Russophobe and this is neither a metaphor nor an exaggeration. She is simply unable to get over herself. For her, a meeting with Vladimir Putin, even in a one-on-one format, is unthinkable. Another thing is that after February 24 this reluctance can already be presented in a "politically correct" (from the Western point of view) form.

- Should the calls for Moldova's reunification with Romania, which are increasing in your country, be taken seriously?

- Neither President Sandu, nor the ruling Action and Solidarity Party considers such a scenario. Even though almost all the representatives of the current Moldovan leadership are also Romanian citizens. Moreover, with all curtsies to their Romanian colleagues, both Mrs. Sandu, the Moldavian Minister of Foreign Affairs Nicu Popescu and other our officials are demonstrating in every possible way that their priority is Washington and Brussels, but not Bucharest. And pragmatically speaking, it is understandable: why should a vassal look up to another vassal, even if of higher status, if he can deal directly with his overlords?

Moreover, the Romanian political elite feels this orientation of the Moldovan "little brother" and it is becoming more and more irritated. On an official level, irritation is not manifested in any way yet, but many Romanian mass media started to criticize Sandu's policy actively. Chisinau responded by banning one of the Romanian TV channels, which allowed such criticism, from broadcasting in the country. Therefore, once again, the infringement of the rights of Russian speakers is not the main motive of the current government's information cleansing action; the fight against dissent is in the foreground.

And as for the unification with Romania - without a nod from the leading Western governments, such an option should not even be discussed. And no such signals are yet expected from there.

- The local media has recently been reporting that the Moldovan government has set its sights on NATO and has even asked the EU and the US for protection from Russia. Do you think there are potential threats to Moldova's security at the current stage or in the future?

- I have already said about the common European security policy under the NATO umbrella and the obligation for us as a candidate for EU membership to follow it. But following such a course automatically drags us into the NATO track as well. The budget of the Moldovan Ministry of Defence for 2023 has been increased by 68 %, and the Minister of Defence Anatol Nosatii has announced that additional funds will be spent on the purchase of anti-aircraft defence systems. Through the European Peace Facility, the EU is allocating tens of millions of euros to Moldova to modernise its national army. The republic becomes a participant in the EU's plan to create dual-use (civilian and military) transport routes in the East, including for the transfer of troops, weapons, and ammunition from western Europe to the borders with Russia. Of course, all this does not go unnoticed in Moscow. I will quote the reaction of the deputy head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Mikhail Galuzin: "The intensification of cooperation of Chisinau with NATO countries in the military and military-technical fields is a factor that to a greater extent undermines the security of Moldova itself. As experience shows, the reckless pumping of this or that country with the western armaments or the deployment of NATO contingents in its territory doesn't add to its security and sovereignty, but on the contrary, brings it closer to a disaster".

Clearly, each side interprets what is happening to its own advantage. But when you watch what is happening in Ukraine, common sense suggests that small Moldova, even if it increases the defence budget by 680%, will not add security. We can only hope that the Russian Federation will not take such pumping of arms seriously, and, for example, missile attack tactics, which are used in the neighbouring country, will not be used against us.

- How do you assess the prospect of the end of hostilities in Ukraine?

- As very unlikely. Ukraine has already lost part of its territories in this war and it does not look like it is ready to accept it. The collective West supports Kyiv's desire to fight "until the end of the war" and does everything it can to keep the war going. Russia, for its part, does not intend to make any concessions and says that the special military operation will be brought to an end. God only knows how and when everything will end.

- Do you think the threat of nuclear war is growing because of the protracted Ukrainian crisis?

- A global nuclear clash between NATO and Russia is unlikely, even in view of the intransigence of the parties in their vision of resolving the Ukrainian crisis. But talk of so-called tactical nuclear weapons, of some kind of hypothetical "local" nuclear war, is disturbing. The stakes are much higher than the fate of Ukraine and its territories.

The process of formation of a new world configuration has started, where such countries as Russia, China, and a number of large and not-so-large states no longer agree with the monopoly arrangement of the global political system, which emerged after the collapse of the USSR and the disappearance of the socialist bloc. But the West, especially the US, does not intend to give up its hegemonic aspirations so easily either.

We are witnessing global confrontation, it is taking place in various forms, and the countries possessing nuclear weapons are also involved as active participants. And each of these countries hypothetically accepts the use of nuclear weapons in the event of a "direct threat" to itself. There is only one problem: the notion of "direct threat" is interpreted differently by each state possessing nuclear weapons. It would be good if they could somehow come to an agreement so that there would be no differences, but today such a wish seems utopian.