Chisinau Turns the Russian Military Threat into a Pretext for Radical Measures?

In recent months, the issue of the Russian threat has been steadily amplified in Chisinau, taking on an increasingly alarmist tone and generating public demand for decisive measures to protect national security

Pro-government experts have counted 30 cases of drones flying over the country and 11 instances of such objects crashing on Moldovan territory this year. The two most recent incidents, one involving the reported overflight and subsequent crash of a Geran-4 jet-powered drone, as stated by the Ministry of Defence, and the other involving an attack on the Starokazachye road border crossing in Ukraine, prompted extensive comments from officials in Chisinau. Yesterday, at a press conference following a government meeting, Defense Minister Anatolie Nosatii became the star of the show, receiving more of the journalists’ attention than anyone else. Yet the tone of the minister’s remarks seemed less like an attempt to answer questions from a concerned public and reassure journalists than an effort to do the opposite and make the situation sound even more frightening. The government official readily echoed the journalists’ concerns and launched into a discussion of possible developments, painting apocalyptic scenarios for what might come next. He did so calmly, with a touch of affected fatalism, as though such an outcome were both inevitable and unavoidable: “We will suffer”. “Some Moldovans may be killed, or more serious material damage may be inflicted”. “We cannot rule out fatalities in the near future”. All of these remarks could hardly be interpreted as anything other than a direct attempt to prepare the population for a reality that we are already watching with horror on our screens in the countries at war to Moldova’s east. In this situation, the journalists were forced not to dig for yet another sensational story, but instead to look for and suggest ways of preventing the tragic scenarios outlined by the Defence Minister. But even here, Anatolie Nosatii stayed in character. When media representatives pointed out that Moldova would already have the technical capability to destroy drones next year, he responded without much optimism, pointing to the obvious inability of the Moldovan military to develop its infrastructure quickly enough to keep pace with the evolution of battlefield technologies. After all, even Ukraine is unable to effectively counter the new fourth-generation Geran drones, so where does that leave Moldova? He also poured cold water on the faint hope of the medium-range air defense system arriving soon, for which the European Union allocated €120 million at the beginning of the summer. Although the system is considered state-of-the-art and capable of addressing the challenges associated with air security, there is no guarantee that the funds allocated will be sufficient to purchase it. Moreover, although consultations with the EU on the matter are scheduled for next week, approval of the application, followed by production and delivery of the system to Moldova, could take considerable time. There is no guarantee that the entire process will be completed within the three-year timeframe. The concerned journalists would not let the matter drop and, toward the end of the briefing, played their “trump card”, pointing out that Romania could come to our aid, given its far greater capabilities and the fact that it, too, has faced incidents along its border with Ukraine. The minister was clearly expecting the question, but, with a stone-faced expression, replied that it was the authorities’ responsibility to identify all measures that could prove effective in protecting lives. He immediately went on to say that this was a highly political issue and that the answer should come from opposition politicians, effectively referring the media to the “uncompromisingly pro-Russian opposition”, which remains committed to the country’s neutral status. Anatolie Nosatii himself, however, speaking both as a citizen and as a minister, expressed solidarity with the journalists’ line of argument, stating that any effective solution for defense, the protection of citizens, and the saving of lives should be taken into consideration at a time when the Russian Federation “continues to pose the main threat to the state’s military security”. Having received a substantial dose of highly alarming information, the journalists were no longer particularly upset by the absence of the finance minister from the briefing, which had been intended to discuss the problems surrounding the adoption of the new fiscal policy, one that threatens to completely empty the pockets of citizens and businesses. Parliament Speaker Igor Grosu also joined the chorus that same day, backing the narrative of growing military threats from Russia. He boasted that, thanks to cooperation with Romania and Ukraine, the military in Chisinau can monitor the country’s airspace in real time, checking minute by minute, even second by second, where drones cross the border and where they subsequently head. According to him, the only remaining issue is how to destroy such targets. And, Igor Grosu admitted, our Romanian colleagues have all the necessary capabilities: military bases, aircraft, and a navy. As for Moldova’s constitutional neutrality, maintaining it has apparently become an unaffordable luxury that not even all European countries can afford, particularly those located along Europe’s eastern borders. A separate issue that emerged was the threat to civil aviation following the August 8 incident, as the drone was reportedly flying within an air corridor used for aircraft take-offs and landings. Speculation about the possible motives and objectives behind the drone’s flight quickly became increasingly elaborate, including claims that it had allegedly posed a personal threat to the president of Ukraine, who has begun using our airport. Whatever the case, this particular incident allegedly “accelerated the process” of Chisinau obtaining the anti-aircraft component of its air defense system. The parliamentary speaker declined to disclose details, citing their classified nature. It became clear as early as this summer that Moldova’s territory had been incorporated into a unified Romania-Moldova-Ukraine airspace monitoring network. Even so-called “non-governmental organizations” are receiving and publishing detailed information on the routes and timing of drone flights. European military structures are actively, yet without excessive publicity, working to strengthen their capabilities along all flanks of a potential theatre of military operations with Russia, committing substantial resources to the effort. A significant part of the training exercises taking place in our region is devoted to countering drones. Reports from the Romanian military about the successful interception and destruction of Russian drones in the area of joint responsibility confirm Bucharest’s key role in the strategy of confronting Russia on the southeastern flank. As far as our country is concerned, the conclusions are self-evident. More precisely, the authorities appear to be doing a fairly effective job of preparing the public to accept what is seemingly an already agreed scenario, under which the country’s airspace will be “reliably protected” through cooperation with our partners in Ukraine and Romania. Purchasing and putting Moldova’s own air defense systems on combat duty is certainly costly, time-consuming, and, of course, a welcome development. But it will obviously be impossible to do without aviation and other military capabilities belonging to neighboring countries. An active segment of the public is already arriving at this conclusion “on its own”. Why pay such a high price for our own security when the country’s financial capacity is effectively exhausted and our neighbors are ready to lend a helping hand?