Such an Amazing Moldova: What’s Dangerous about American Money for the Sandu-Dodon Government

RTA author Sergey Cheban talks about how Moldova becomes a hostage of geopolitical myths and how it is dangerous for the country. Analysts argue that for all the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the logic of the cold war has not disappeared from the post-Soviet space and still dominates in the society of Eastern Europe, primarily Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and, of course, Russia. “Propaganda does its bit and defines a particular enemy, who it suggests not to like very much and appoints a troublemaker. Russia has not changed the enemy since the Soviet Union, it is a collective West led by the United States. Belarus has the same West and the local liberal ‘fifth column’. Ukraine’s No. 1 enemy is Russia, and Moldova has a few enemies: Russia, and the Communist past, and Romania, and these most alien ‘European values’,” explains Cheban. “As a result, the mentality of the cold war does not disappear, but is fueled by journalists and experts. This simplified logic helps to find the guilty and presents a target for hatred, finds the greatest support from a common man – that is, ordinary people, to whom the government intensively imposes a picture of the world. As a result, public grows more and more convinced that those who are not with us are just against us,” the expert emphasizes. Cheban notes that there are clear stereotypes that have been set over the years in the minds of the inhabitants of Eastern Europe that help to find the enemy in almost any situation. According to him, for Ukraine and partly Moldova such criterion is the attitude to the Soviet past. “If you do not consider the USSR a totalitarian empire and do not mention Stalin’s repressions at any opportunity – you are the enemy. If you condemn Putin and believe in the Russian connection – you are a friend. Russia has no less radical search criteria of enemies: usually this is attitude to the Great Patriotic War, ‘European values’, belonging of Crimea, as well as to American diplomats and American money,” the expert notes. According to the analyst, the Moldovan media not coincidentally covered very cautiously the meetings of the Prime Minister Maia Sandu and the Parliament Speaker Zinaida Greceanii with representatives of USAID that is by all accounts one of the main foundations of the US soft power and sources of ‘easy money in exchange for democracy’. “The USAID activities create sometimes even more myths than reality. No one is particularly interested, for example, where the $100 million provided to Moldova since 2016 went. And especially where those 29 million will go, which Maia Sandu agreed yesterday with the USAID Assistant Administrator in Europe and Eurasian Countries Brock Bierman. The main thing is that it is US money – and, according to popular belief, American money always leads to something,” said Cheban. The author states that a month after the overthrow of Plahotniuc, the new government has almost unlimited credit of trust from all stakeholders, from Brussels to Moscow. However, it is now important for the Sandu-Dodon government to maintain a balance between the centers of power. “It is clear that now Chisinau is very grateful to Washington for the 15 minutes which Ambassador Derek Hogan spent to convince Plahotniuc to leave the ‘throne’. In addition, the new government should rather show that it can be friends and negotiate with the States no less successfully than the ‘oligarch No. 1’. However, so far, the dynamics of rapprochement with the West in the new Moldova seriously exceeds the successes in the Russian direction, at least in terms of media. Igor Dodon even before the February elections promised Russian investments of $100 million, and USAID has already invested them since 2016. The tendency is obvious, and this is the main risk for the PSRM and ACUM coalition,” the expert believes. “If after a few months Moldova’s drift towards the West increases, there is no guarantee that all the stories with American money will not become the main topic for the most angry and radical Russian experts. They are sure to ask where and to whom both 100 and 29 million went, and they will answer. Moreover, USAID does not hide that it will continue to invest in the fight against the Russian threat in Europe. In political terms, this is the main danger of US financial assistance: at least for several countries it is an indicator of the enemy,” said Cheban. “Hence the limited coverage of meetings with Bierman: there is no need to provoke the patriotic public in the partner countries once again. One way or another, a good ‘vaccination’ could be the widest possible coverage by the new Moldovan government of the goals and objectives for which American money is planned to be spent. Otherwise, the logic of the geopolitical struggle and the eternal search for the enemy can seriously harm Chisinau – not now, then in the future,” the expert says.