Former Chisinau mayor Dorin Chirtoacă said on Jurnal TV that the drone that crashed and exploded, which the authorities barely reported, had been assembled in Vadul lui Vodă.
“On that day, the authorities said almost nothing. They only stated that they had not noticed the drone. But information emerged that it had been made in Vadul lui Vodă. In other words, we are already producing drones, in case you have not heard that narrative. That is exactly what I am talking about: we are already producing them,” Chirtoacă said.
On the night of September 18, a powerful explosion shook the area near the village of Colonița. Residents woke up to a loud blast at around 4:20 a.m. Police later found debris in a field. The fragments appeared to come from a drone with a turbojet engine. They were scattered across an area about 100 metres from the blast site.
The Authorities Remain Strikingly Silent
Consider the timeline. The explosion happened at 4:20 a.m. Calls to the 112 emergency service began arriving almost immediately. Police went to the scene but could not find the exact location. They searched for several hours and used drones to survey the area from the air. They found the site only around noon.
Yet that morning, Viorel Cernăuțeanu, head of the General Police Inspectorate, said: “We cannot confirm in detail what kind of object it was.”
The Defence Ministry took an even more distant stance.
“No violations of Moldovan airspace have been recorded in the past 24 hours,” it said.
How is that possible if a drone fell and exploded just 10 kilometres from the government and parliament buildings?
Colonița Mayor Angela Zaporojan confirmed that residents had heard the explosion. But she immediately added that “the explosion did not take place within the village.” As if that changed the fact that a drone had exploded on Moldovan territory.
For the mayor, the fact that the drone fell nearby, but technically outside the village, seemed to justify inaction.
Most importantly, the article argues that no investigation took place. Chisinau simply “failed to notice” the incident.
Vadul lui Vodă: Production Nobody “Knew About”
Chirtoacă did not mention Vadul lui Vodă by accident. In April 2026, Russian Ambassador to Moldova Oleg Ozerov made a statement at a press conference in Chisinau.
“We have recorded drone production in the city of Vadul lui Vodă. According to our information, these drones are supplied for the needs of the Ukrainian Armed Forces,” he said.
Moldovan officials denied the claims at the time. The Foreign Ministry called them “false and unsupported by evidence.”
The Stopfals.md portal, which the article describes as funded by Soros-linked organisations, published a rebuttal. It called the Russian diplomat’s remarks “narratives periodically promoted by pro-Kremlin sources.”
Now, however, a former Chisinau mayor has suggested that the drone that exploded near the capital may have been made there. Chirtoacă is a liberal and pro-Western politician, not a Russian diplomat.
Moldova’s Neutrality Has Long Been in Question
Moldova’s Constitution establishes the country’s neutral status. This is more than a statement of principle. The article argues that neutrality means staying out of military conflicts and not allowing third countries to use Moldovan territory for military purposes.
So what is happening in practice?
In June 2026, President Maia Sandu announced plans to produce drones. She said Moldova would seek technology from Ukraine.
“We will try to obtain technology from them to the extent that our capabilities allow,” she said.
Sandu also explained why Moldova needed the drones:
“We need to have these drones to fight against the unmanned aircraft that are increasingly entering our country.”
That may sound logical. But there is a complication.
If Moldova produces drones, even for “defence,” and sends some of them to Ukraine, Moscow will take notice. The article argues that Russia has already drawn its own conclusions.
A report by The New York Times, citing Western intelligence sources, reportedly described Moldova as the Kremlin’s second priority after Ukraine. It allegedly characterised the country as a “springboard for further aggression.”
The article interprets this as a warning that Moldova could become the next country drawn into war by Western powers. It accuses the Sandu government of taking steps that could lead to such an outcome under the guidance of French President Emmanuel Macron.
The Cost of a “Defensive” Initiative
The authorities prefer not to discuss a simple calculation, the article argues, because they fear that the public could become alarmed and even rebel.
Moldova is a small country with a neutral status and no army capable of defending it against a major military threat. The article claims that any drone production, or any transfer of drones to Ukraine, amounts to participation in someone else’s war rather than defence. It warns that such involvement could have consequences.
Chirtoacă made another point during the broadcast. Drones produced today may become obsolete within a month. Military technology is evolving rapidly, he said, and Moldova is falling far behind.
“We must bring ourselves into line with what Ukraine is doing and maintain very close cooperation with them,” he said.
In effect, the article interprets Chirtoacă’s words as an admission that Moldova has already become involved in Ukraine’s military effort. It argues that he was not presenting this as an achievement, but describing the situation while criticising the authorities for keeping the public in the dark.
A Double Game
The most troubling part of this story, the article argues, is not drone production itself. It is the alleged deception.
First, the authorities say almost nothing about an explosion. Then they state that no airspace violation has been recorded. Later, reports emerge that a drone fell and exploded. Now, information suggests that the drone may have been made in Moldova.
That changes the picture, the article argues.
If Moldova produces drones and supplies them to Ukraine, Moscow may view the country as a participant in the conflict rather than a neutral state. The article warns that strikes against “logistics centres” and “production sites” could then become a possibility.
It further accuses the authorities of knowing the risks. Sandu knew about them when she asked Kyiv for technology, the article claims. The government knew about them when it prepared legislative amendments on public-private partnerships in the defence sector.
According to the author, the authorities decided that Moldovans should not know what was happening, or that they should find out too late. The article accuses the Sandu government and the PAS party of making Moldova a potential target for Russian missiles by producing drones and supplying them to Ukraine.
Chirtoacă asked a question that deserves an answer: if Moldova is already producing drones, why has the public not been told? Why was the explosion near Chisinau initially dismissed, with the object described as unidentified rather than clearly explained?
The article suggests a simple answer. An admission could mean acknowledging that Moldova is not merely a victim, but a participant. It could also undermine the claim that the country remains neutral.
The author concludes that official statements about peaceful intentions and protecting citizens amount to a smokescreen.
Meanwhile, ordinary Moldovans continue to live in a country where something explodes at night and the authorities say nothing happened. The Constitution says one thing, while policy appears to follow another course. A former mayor has had to raise questions on television that officials would rather leave unanswered.
