“Hybrid War” as a Universal Justification for PAS

Recently, our leadership has appeared at three significant international gatherings. While the trade forum on November 14 passed without any notable successes, the events in Brussels and Chisinau briefly diverted public attention from the scandals surrounding the ruling party. Observers of the European Enlargement Forum had a hard time finding any truly newsworthy developments. Brussels officials held a sort of therapy session, convincing themselves and others that the European Union still remains a meaningful geopolitical actor and a center of attraction for new members. According to them, an unprecedented advantage for candidate countries lies in the fact that the EU provides benefits in advance, such as reduced roaming costs or integration into a unified energy system. In response to these mantras, representatives of the Western Balkan membership aspirants and our newly appointed Prime Minister showered praise and assured their readiness to counter Moscow’s hybrid threats. Moreover, at the event, Alexandru Munteanu could be seen as speaking not only for Moldova but also for Ukraine, since in the absence of senior officials from Kyiv, he spoke extensively about the achievements and aspirations of both countries. The only real newsworthy revelation from the “European gathering” came from the Prime Minister and the Head of the Bureau for European Integration, Cristina Gherasimov, regarding the existence of a reintegration plan for the country. This plan is not only being discussed with European and American partners but also promises concrete results as early as next year. The officials’ over-optimism eventually required clarification, which boiled down to repeating well-known facts: Transnistria trades with the EU, and its population, despite the authorities’ clear reluctance to involve them in the country’s political life, partly votes in favor of the European vector. The two-day event in Chisinau, loudly branded as the Moldova Security Forum, looked large-scale and grandiose at first glance. There were many foreign guests, a speech by Maia Sandu, and a whole series of discussion panels. However, upon closer inspection, it resembled a gathering of representatives of local and European NGOs, to which Moldovan ambassadors were brought in to add prestige, along with mid-level European officials who had previously visited Moldova and were able to deliver approving remarks, even if only in the hallways. A sort of provincial get-together with old acquaintances and little-known invited experts, financed by European funds. For example, the session on “crisis management in a new era of hybrid threats.” Among the foreign participants were an adviser to the President of Croatia, the head of NATO’s Crisis Management Centre, the head of a department within the Swedish Development Agency, and Philippe Boutinaud, an adviser to the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces. The latter, a former head of the Paris Fire Brigade, spoke to the audience about his work in emergency services. How exactly the experience of former French firefighters could help Moldova deal with the “Russian threat” remained unclear. There was also a panel discussion on strengthening energy security through strategic vision and cooperation. Here, our officials certainly had something to boast about, especially against the backdrop of the completion of the Vulcanesti-Chisinau high-voltage transmission line. All that remains is testing and commissioning. The panel on “countering disinformation through strategic communication to strengthen national security” addressed a more specific topic. The tone there was set by Sandu herself, who stated that Moldova is unable to confront this phenomenon on its own. Or rather, the desire exists, but the authorities’ attempts to introduce total censorship in the online space face strong public resistance and accusations of authoritarian tendencies. Under these circumstances, the country urgently needs a ready-made set of restrictive instruments from outside – tools that the authorities would be more likely to succeed in imposing on society. More precisely, it would be fair to say that our president predetermined the course of all discussions and conclusions for the participants of the event. How could it be otherwise in our little kingdom? Maia Sandu recalled that Veronica Dragalin had allegedly obstructed efforts to combat the shameful phenomenon of electoral corruption. As a result, the authorities failed to properly prepare for the recent electoral campaigns, demonstrating their vulnerability. Sandu, however, did not associate herself personally with these displays of weakness by the ruling power, instead indulging her pride by declaring her exceptional and unsinkable public image. The audience nodded approvingly, pretending to forget (or not to know) how the 2024 presidential elections and referendum had actually ended. Judging by the reactions of the Moldovan NGOs and media involved in the event, one can confidently say that the forum’s real underlying goal was to revive the theme of external threats and to involve as large a segment of civil society as possible in debates about risks and security. Moreover, these discussions are meant to continue in the form of follow-up events, seminars, roundtables, and informational or promotional materials on the chosen topic, activities that European nongovernmental funds are fully prepared to keep financing. Simply put, local opinion leaders, bloggers, and activists who have not yet been involved in the current PAS projects were offered cooperation with quite specific prospects and bonuses. For the European partners, it appears to be easier – through their own funds – to buy out all Moldovan media structures than to rely on the successes of the authorities in Chisinau. As for the narratives that civil society representatives are expected to promote, some clarity was provided by Mihai Popsoi’s remark on the inability of state neutrality to stop tanks. NATO representatives at the event had already sensed this tremor within the ruling class and, in their speeches, demonstrated a readiness to extend the umbrella of Euro-Atlantic security eastward. To lend these messages the necessary persuasiveness, some accompanying and unexpected military incident was simply required. An unidentified flying object in the country’s airspace, detected only with the help of external partners, became that missing piece of the puzzle in the narrative being imposed on the masses (or rather, the picture of war). And this happened precisely at the moment when achieving peace in the neighboring country had once again become a real possibility.