Torn Between Kyiv and Brussels: Moldova Faces a Defining Choice

Sergiu CEBAN

To fast-track its own accession to the European Union, Moldova will most likely be forced to gradually distance itself from Kyiv

Five days ago, the “Ukraine – Southeastern Europe” summit was held in Odesa. The event was described by its organizers as “an important step toward regional consolidation” amid the ongoing war. The meeting brought together the leaders of nine countries: Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and of course, Ukraine. Officially, the discussions focused on supporting Kyiv, as well as matters of security, energy, economic resilience, and European integration. But behind the facade of solidarity lay a complex mosaic of contradictions, geopolitical ambitions, and outright political posturing. At first glance, the event looked like yet another, by now routine, display of unwavering support for Ukraine. Participants spoke about Russian aggression and its consequences for the entire region, framing Moscow’s invasion not merely as a war between two countries, but as a direct challenge to the entire system of international security. But behind the lofty declarations of unity, stark differences in approach were hard to miss. Take Serbia, for instance, a country that has long balanced between friendly ties with Moscow and pragmatic engagement with the European Union. While President Aleksandar Vucic verbally adhered to Ukraine’s territorial integrity, he notably refused to sign the summit’s final declaration. That, along with several other telling nuances, underscores the limits of regional consolidation amid such diverging political trajectories. Moreover, Vucic’s remarks on the integrity of Ukraine’s borders carried a barely veiled reference to Kosovo, whose representatives, notably, were not invited to the summit. Still, both Ukraine and Moldova have effectively acknowledged Kosovo’s partial sovereignty by accepting its passports for visa services. The choice of venue was especially symbolic – Odesa, a city regularly targeted by large-scale missile and drone strikes. Against the backdrop of heavy bombardments, the arrival of high-level foreign dignitaries appeared either as a bold act of defiance or, more plausibly, as a meticulously designed and tightly secured operation. Indeed, not a single strike or air raid alarm occurred on the day of the summit. It’s hard to believe that was merely a coincidence. This sudden “ceasefire” during an overtly anti-Russian international gathering raises a reasonable question: where does the reality of war end, and where does the stagecraft begin? As expected, Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech centered on three key issues: arms deliveries, economic assistance, and tightening sanctions against Russia. He also proposed lowering the price cap on Russian oil from $45 to $30 per barrel. Though this seems unlikely amid growing turbulence in global energy markets, exacerbated by the escalating Iran-Israel conflict and the broader instability in the Middle East. Zelensky further accused Russia of meddling in the internal affairs of neighboring countries, claiming that Moscow has spent decades keeping Chisinau in a state of dependence. He also warned that Russian forces are concentrating near Odesa and now pose a threat not only to Ukraine, but also to Moldova and Romania. Maia Sandu stood out as one of the summit’s most striking speakers. She delivered a crisp message: support for Ukraine must be “faster, broader, and more concrete”, effectively placing the burden of Ukraine’s fate on the shoulders of every country in the region. Moldova, she declared, is even prepared to represent Kyiv’s interests in international forums where Ukraine lacks diplomatic presence. Objectively speaking, such remarks raise questions about the competence of the president’s speechwriters and advisers. When making such declarations, one must first align them with the actual state of affairs. Moldova remains one of the weakest states in Europe, with severely limited internal resources, including diplomatic capacities. Against this backdrop, Maia Sandu’s lofty assertion that Moldova’s upcoming parliamentary elections will be of “historic significance”, not just for the country but for all of Europe, could hardly provoke anything more than a restrained smile from the audience. The speech by Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic stood out for its rare candor. In his view, a ceasefire can only be a temporary measure, while the ultimate goal must remain the full restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. This position, while arguably logical, serves as yet another indication that the war is unlikely to end anytime soon. At best, it may evolve, shifting from an active “hot” phase to a prolonged “cold” standoff. Greece’s prime minister also raised eyebrows with his remarks, praising Ukraine’s “unique experience and capabilities” gained during the war, which, he suggested, could now be shared with European partners. Amid staggering human and economic losses, such remarks sound, to put it mildly, ill-timed, reflecting a detached technocratic outlook on war rather than any genuine sign of compassion. Overall, the Odesa summit demonstrated that while regional support for Ukraine persists, its depth and sincerity remain open to question. The countries of Southeastern Europe may be rhetorically united by the perceived threat from Russia, but they are divided by their internal priorities, political allegiances, and trade and economic strategies. One of the summit’s central takeaways was Zelensky’s assertion about the indivisibility of security in Southeastern Europe and the Black Sea basin. Given NATO’s wavering stance on Ukraine, this statement effectively launches a broader discussion on the need to establish a sub-regional military-political alliance. Such a bloc could serve as a platform for engaging other regional players interested in preventing Northern Black Sea territories from falling entirely under Russian control. Moreover, although the summit’s final declaration lacked concrete plans or initiatives, it placed notable emphasis on the Black Sea’s strategic importance for both European and global security. This may signal Kyiv’s intention to engage in unconventional diplomatic maneuvers aimed at boosting its geopolitical relevance and staking a claim to shaping a regional security architecture backed by corresponding military guarantees. Notably, Maia Sandu has also begun to speak out regarding potential changes to the country’s military status. For example, she stated that Moldova would disregard any strategic agreements between the US and Russia if they involve guarantees that Moldova will not join NATO. On one hand, such comments can be seen as an attempt to respond to shifting geopolitical realities and reaffirm support for Kyiv. At the same time, in the fragile international context, emphasizing an unguaranteed foreign policy independence, including the intention to independently determine priorities in security and defense, is undoubtedly a very risky move, leaving considerable room for interpretation, not only in Moscow’s corridors of power. The Odesa forum symbolically passes the baton to Moldova’s first summit with the European Union, scheduled for July 4. Key EU representatives are expected to attend, with the practical focus on analyzing the country’s European path and assessing progress on its integration commitments. However, the central issue, it seems, will be the future direction of our state. Following the summit, we may receive clear signals on whether Chisinau will gradually distance itself from Kyiv to accelerate its own EU accession or continue deepening military-strategic coordination with Ukraine, which will inevitably entail corresponding consequences.