The Dark Side of “Euro-Reforms”

By the end of 2025, the reformed state institutions and public bodies remain closed and opaque structures, used for political influence and personal enrichment

Mutual cover-ups and the concealment of abuses within structures funded by Moldovan taxpayers only occasionally become public knowledge. Periodic scandals involving reformed institutions, presented by the current authorities as points of pride, emerge either by chance or are brought into the open by officials driven to desperation. A telling example of such a media “powerhouse” in our media landscape is Teleradio-Moldova. In early December, the Court of Accounts presented parliament with a report on its audit of public financial and asset management at the state media company. Interest in this audit is easily explained: substantial budgetary funds are allocated to maintain the institution (148.9 million lei in 2023 and 185.8 million lei in 2024), while the role assigned to it in promoting the ruling regime is of critical importance. However, the audit produced no positive assessments. On the contrary, it revealed serious violations and shortcomings. The main criticism boils down to the fact that Teleradio-Moldova effectively operates in a hybrid mode. While receiving state funding, the company simultaneously conducts commercial activities like a regular media outlet: earning advertising revenue, fulfilling commissions for private entities, and participating in the absorption of foreign grants. Over the past two years, TRM officially earned more than 43 million lei. Such permissive conditions are meant to sustain its competitiveness, attract personnel, and enable the purchase of new equipment, among other things. It is obvious that in such circumstances dual accounting becomes the norm, yet certain cases raise legitimate questions. For example, the company can at its own discretion transfer funds from treasury accounts to off-budget ones, hold substantial sums in commercial banks, thus generating additional profits for them and costs for the state. Procurement and payments for third-party services are carried out without compliance with standard requirements. TRM manages 39 buildings with a total area of 40.5 thousand square meters, yet their efficiency is highly questionable, as they are not even included in the register of state property. Dozens of facilities do not appear in the cadaster at all. How they are used in practice, and by whom, remains a major open question. These “minor details” might have been overlooked if not for the unrestrained ambitions of Teleradio-Moldova’s leadership. As it turned out, Director General Vlad Turcanu signed himself a contract containing a clause on a payout of 364 thousand lei upon the expiration of his mandate, and up to 1.5 million lei in the event of early dismissal. Moreover, he claimed that the authorities not only approved these bonuses but justified them by citing the “interest of national security”. During the pre-election period, fears prevailed within the ruling party that the opposition might take a parliamentary majority, followed by purges in state institutions, including TRM. The idea was that the need to pay substantial compensation in such a scenario would deter his removal from office. Turcanu admitted that he not only receives political instructions on what to broadcast, but also takes pride in his “participation” in the broader struggle to keep PAS in power by securing such an “insurance policy”. It is easy to guess that he is far from the only regime appointee to have prepared a safety cushion in case of electoral failure; however, his foolishness exposed this unsightly reality. A scandal ensued. PAS began actively denying any involvement, and Turcanu’s contract was declared illegal. Offended and feeling abandoned, he expressed genuine bewilderment as to why the party in power was concealing such a “heroic” act in the fight to preserve the euro-integration course. Another example. On their professional holiday, our valiant guardians of law and order staged a drinking spree in the center of the capital, accompanied by gunfire. The leadership of the Police Inspectorate and the Ministry of Internal Affairs attempted to cover up the incident. Even after opposition MPs brought it to public attention, Minister Daniella Misail-Nichitin continued to defend the interests of her subordinates, misleading the public about the details of what had happened and the consequences for those involved. Another telling story concerns the reaction of state authorities to environmentalists’ calls to revise the country’s reforestation program. They are now relentlessly labeled as “enemies” for allegedly trying to sabotage the national reforestation program, initiated by Maia Sandu for 200 million euros. In reality, around 50 environmental organizations merely suggested adjusting the program by reducing the planting of acacia in favor of native tree species. The reasons for concern are clear. Currently, up to 90% of the areas are being planted with acacia. As a result, there is a risk of spending significant investments, only to face an even more dismal situation in 10-15 years. It is well known that large-scale planting of such an invasive species only harms the hydrological regime, creating so-called “green deserts” where no other trees can grow. At the same time, the main goal of the reforestation program is precisely to improve the hydrological regime, retain soil moisture, and reduce the negative effects of drought. However, the relevant authorities decided that it was simpler and, most importantly, more profitable to plant everything with fast-growing, low-maintenance acacia. This way, not only can they easily report on completed work, but they can also make a tidy profit from selling the timber. The Ministry of Ecology is misleading the public by claiming that acacia accounts for only 15-20% of plantings, even though the Moldsilva Agency has directly acknowledged that it makes up 88% of forest plantations. The authorities have no interest in holding professional discussions with environmentalists and simply discredit them in the eyes of the public. The fourth, probably the least severe in terms of abuse but widely resonating incident, involves pressure from the Superior Council of Magistracy on its colleague – judge Marina Rusu. Yes, that very reformed SCM refused to accommodate a mother of seven children who requested workload distribution in accordance with current legislation. It seems unclear why the council leadership refused to include Rusu in the category of judges automatically assigned 50% of the standard workload, thereby avoiding a public scandal. In this case, the collusion manifested in the system’s unwillingness to reinstate an employee with an active civic stance who had been on maternity leave. The attempt to draw public attention to a desperate mother, unable to breastfeed her children on time, turned into outright manipulation and pressure from law enforcement agencies, including the Security and Intelligence Service, as well as a sanctioned smear campaign in pro-government media. Officials who passed all evaluation commission filters and were recognized as among the most deserving within the judicial self-governing structure apparently simply carried out a political order to remove citizens inconvenient to the authorities, those who, over the past years, allowed themselves to offer objective and constructive criticism of the ruling power, and those who tried to protect and support colleagues who became victims of abuses. Evidence of this is the attempt to brand Marina Rusu and all those concerned about her situation as “agents of the Kremlin”. The frontliners of such a media campaign were journalists from our so-called “independent” media. As public opinion polls show, trust in these outlets, as well as in state institutions, is minimal, yet this does not prevent them from claiming the role of moral authorities. The saddest part of this whole story is the encouragement, from a significant portion of our population, of such acts of discrimination accompanied by waves of hate and harassment. Deviant behavior in Moldovan society, traditionally considered tolerant, is taking on a persistent and widespread nature. Following the instincts of the crowd, people are ready to vent their anger on those whom the authorities designate as targets. This is the grim outcome of aggressive propaganda, the consistent stoking of division, and the cultivation of stereotypes about external threats and omnipresent enemy agents.