Sandu Signals Leadership Aspirations in European Parliament

The invitation to speak in the European Parliament served as a consolatory gift to Maia Sandu in the wake of the decision to deny the separation of Moldova’s and Ukraine’s EU accession applications. However, the Moldovan president’s high-profile speech was remembered not only for grievances, anger, and moralizing, but also for its distinctive assertion of leadership

Christian RUSSU, RTA: Yesterday marked a significant event for our country within the walls of the European Parliament: Maia Sandu delivered a speech to the community’s deputies in Strasbourg. And this was not a timid expression of gratitude or a request for support, as European parliamentarians have come to expect from Eastern European leaders, but a sharp display of dissatisfaction and an assertive claim to authority. In recent years, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been the figure most likely to unsettle European Union officials at public events. He was invited or often inserted himself onto every available platform, both national and EU-wide. Criticisms of sluggishness, accusations of indecisiveness, warnings of war, and demands for greater support – EU leaders and bureaucrats long endured these and ostentatiously expressed approval. Gradually, quiet irritation and fatigue turned into outright displeasure with Zelensky’s aggressive rhetoric and moralizing. Now, Maia Sandu has fully adopted his alarmist style in her public addresses on European stages. It would not be an exaggeration to say that our president has long outgrown the provincial confines of Moldova’s political environment. Whether at party meetings, parliamentary sessions, or public squares, Maia Sandu speaks from a distinctly authoritative position. Her prepared speeches are simple, rigidly structured constructs that leave no room for debate, demanding only complete and unconditional acceptance. When addressing audiences about crises, the approach is to highlight the uniqueness of the moment, instill a sense of urgency by stressing the severity of threats, identify the cause and the culprit, and then guide listeners toward the anticipation of a solution. It remains only to plant the idea on the prepared ground, pointing to the savior or the decisive remedy. Such oratory skills deserve praise, even considering the speaker’s inability to engage in intellectual debate or entertain alternative viewpoints. As the saying goes, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. One might recall that in a similar manner, a young German army soldier in the 1920s paved his path to power: boundless ambition, the ability to captivate audiences with inspired, fiery speeches, coupled with a complete incapacity to consider other perspectives. In addition, self-distrust, rancor, and a thirst for revenge. In the European Parliament, our president declared that the upcoming elections are once again “the most important in the country’s history”, and that their outcome will determine whether Moldova remains a stable democracy, a reliable neighbor to Ukraine, and a security provider for the EU. The emphasis on the uniqueness and gravity of the moment was aimed not at the country’s citizens, but at external partners. Hence the deliberate stoking of fears about Moldova potentially becoming a source of instability on the EU’s southeastern flank and Ukraine’s southwest, as well as the clear identification of the main threat – Russia. Equally symbolic was the “lesson in modern history” delivered to the deputies of the EU member states. This speech was clearly crafted by the presidential advisors. According to Maia Sandu’s interpretation, there were no true democracies in Europe before those countries joined the European Union. In other words, no EU member state can consider itself a genuine democracy in its “pre-accession” period. Everyone received their share of rebuke: some states were branded former dictatorships, others were labeled economically unviable, and still others were reminded of their dubious neutrality or their shameful communist or socialist past. All were expected to conclude that it was Brussels’ bureaucracy that turned their nations into stable democracies and, by extension, that too much should not be demanded of Moldova’s authorities either. The takeaway came with the caveat that Chisinau is “not looking for easy ways out, but is fighting for democracy with all its might”. Clearly, this message stems from frustration, including that of some MEPs, with the country’s actual situation, the suppression of pluralism, and the increasingly authoritarian tendencies of the government. However, Maia Sandu’s ambitions in the European Parliament went beyond merely demanding leniency for our country or preparing public opinion for possible government action against electoral rivals and a potential rejection of the election results. Beyond her historical journey, a far more symbolic claim to something greater was her self-presentation as a European leader, speaking on behalf of the entire community and of future members, including Ukraine. One could say that, yesterday in Strasbourg, the voice of President Zelensky could be heard alongside hers: “Moldova and Ukraine are ready to take the next step”. “This is to defend democracy”. “If we cannot be protected, then no one in the EU can be safe”. This went beyond a mere acknowledgment of the existing political consensus within the EU. It was an unequivocal claim to a political future that reaches beyond Moldova’s borders – a claim born of frustration with the hesitation of today’s European leaders. Perhaps anticipating the tone of Sandu’s address, many deputies deliberately left the chamber before the start of the session and the votes on the agenda items. The half-empty hall, the outbursts of the controversial Romanian MP Diana Sosoaca declaring that “Moldova is Romania!” and other signs of rejection may have only strengthened our president’s conviction that the European community, in its current form, needs a new leader, who, following the example of predecessors, will lead it with a firm hand toward a “restoration of former greatness”, reclaim its global status, and drive expansion eastward. But first, another victory must be won in Chisinau. This is why the Strasbourg rostrum was also used as a platform for political campaigning aimed directly at the Moldovan electorate.