Was a Kidnapped Nikolai Chaus Like a "Black Swan" for Maia Sandu?

Sergey CHEBAN A brazen kidnapping of Ukrainian judge Nikolai Chaus in Chisinau took the president and her retinue by surprise This week, the Constitutional Court is expected to comment on the conditions for the dissolution of the Moldovan parliament. Notably, whatever the court's decision, it goes hand in hand with another request to the Constitutional Court on the lawfulness of the procedure for introducing a two-month state of emergency in the country by the PSRM and "Shor/For Moldova" deputies. Skepticism of politicians and experts in this regard, relaxation and gradual easing of restrictions by the relevant commission, coupled with acting prime-minister Aureliu Ciocoi's position (who interpreted the emergency regime as having more politics than concern for the population) indicate that it will be very challenging to retain and further fuel the current situation week after week. The unabated story of the Ukrainian judge Nikolai Chaus, abducted from the city center in broad daylight, helped downplay the state of emergency issue. As you know, Chaus was in hiding in the country's capital since 2016 after the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine exposed the judge of receiving a bribe. However, using his judicial immunity, being assisted by high political patrons in Kyiv, Chaus eventually escaped arrest and made it to Moldova, asking our law enforcement officers for asylum. Enough time has passed, but still this case has a lot of dark spots, and causes no less political and informational excitement. All these only hampers attempts to look calmly into the matter and find out who needed that judge and where he is now. Numerous versions were put forward by various journalists and experts during the previous week. They can be conditionally classified into two categories. The first explains the kidnapping as an attempt to help Chaus escape the Ukrainian justice, which could harm the political reputation of certain influential people in Ukraine. The second category of hypotheses, on the contrary, is associated with intentional kidnapping in order to use the former judicial official and his testimony to reinforce the evidence base in certain high-profile criminal cases. This version is supported by the fact that, according to some sources, Nikolai Chaus was transported across the border in a car with diplomatic plates of the Ukrainian embassy in Chisinau. Although the Ukrainian SBU and the Foreign Ministry have already stated that Kyiv has nothing to do with the Chaus incident, the long-term lack of any clarity may ultimately damage relations between Ukraine and Moldova. At the same time, there are enough stakeholders in Chisinau who would like such a scandalous topic in relations between the two states not only emerge but also provoke corresponding negative effects. So far, Kyiv looks like being forced to reflect upon an  unpleasant story, which is even less convincing in terms of substance than the continued proud silence of the Ukrainian Embassy in Chisinau. The speed with which the resonant story was promptly launched and hyped in media, with additional daily dosed reports (mainly on information platforms and Telegram channels close to the Socialist Party), may indicate that the PSRM and its leaders had direct access to the planning  and the course of operations. According to various sources and journalistic investigations, the kidnapping was apparently organized by the Ukrainian special forces, either with partial assistance or under the supervision and patronage of the Moldovan special services. Information leakage through the Socialist Party channels confirms that it continues to control an essential part of the country's law enforcement agencies. The latter seem to be a concentration of Moldovan security officials who politically sympathize with the PSRM and are willing to participate in generating such targeted information attacks against the current president. To his credit, Igor Dodon managed, perhaps for the first time over the past few months, to find a weak spot and deliver a painful blow to his main political opponent. In the end, it was Maia Sandu who took on the burden of developing relations and contacts with the eastern neighbor. As a result, the daring move of the Ukrainian special services on the territory of our republic casts a shadow primarily on the head of state, who was even accused by some observers of a "tacit agreement" to the judge's kidnapping. With Chaus's case as the current subject of much debate in Moldova, the socialists have been keeping the topic on the boil for a week already, while the president's entourage is unsuccessfully seeking to recoup the costs in public image. Over the past period of time, the president has failed so far to take proper control of the scandalous story and voice solid arguments to the Moldovan audience. As you know, people in Moldova have high expectations for the current Moldovan leader, who was not supposed to get into such a toxic story. In addition, Sandu missed the opportunity to take the lead of political and public discontent, including by holding an operational meeting of the Supreme Security Council. As a result, the parliamentary opponents, taking the initiative into their own hands, promptly formed a special parliamentary commission to investigate the resonant case and, in the best traditions of the Moldovan internal political struggle, will for a long time continue to shoot poisoned arrows towards the presidency. It appears that the story with Chaus became a kind of a "black swan" for Maia Sandu and her advisors, taking everyone by surprise. In the coming days, the head of state's retinue, not without the help of international partners, will most likely help her to take evasive actions and change the information agenda, gradually defusing tensions and increased attention to the resonant kidnapping. It is not excluded that the main efforts will be put to ensure that the Constitutional Court rules on all requests as explicitly as possible, shifting the focus of public attention again to itself.