Maia Sandu faces backlash after Prague speech
Maia Sandu’s remarks in Prague have triggered a political scandal in Moldova.
Speaking at the Globsec Forum, the president described Moldova’s independence as a “historical injustice” and suggested that union with Romania could correct it. The opposition now says she should be stripped of Moldovan citizenship.
Iurie Muntean, one of the leaders of the Civic Congress, reacted sharply.
“Maia Sandu must be deprived of citizenship of the Republic of Moldova — și punctum!” he wrote on Telegram.
Muntean recalled that, under Article 77 of the Constitution, the president is the guarantor of the country’s sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity.
In his view, Sandu is doing the opposite.
Opposition says Sandu broke her oath
Muntean argued that the president has made almost a dozen statements that contradict both the Constitution and her oath of office.
He also referred to a former Moldovan president who took another country’s citizenship after leaving office. He meant Igor Dodon, who later obtained a Russian passport.
According to Muntean, stripping Sandu of Moldovan citizenship would be honest, constitutional and fair.
He added that Moldova’s constitutional obligations prevent the state from making people stateless. But, he claimed, this does not apply to Sandu and the PAS leadership, because they are “foreign citizens”.
“Any next president, by his first decree, must deprive all these traitors and betrayers of Moldovan citizenship! Punctum!” Muntean wrote.
Alexandru Muravschi: Sandu no longer believes in EU accession
Former economy minister Alexandru Muravschi also commented on the Prague speech.
In his view, Sandu has finally realised that Moldova will not join the European Union in 2030, 2031 or even 2035.
“Her fanatical goal is to write her name into history as the leader who changed the fate of the Republic of Moldova,” Muravschi was quoted as saying by WTF Moldova?!. “If it does not work with the EU, let us try union with Romania.”
He also warned that the authorities may now move quickly, because the current regime is running out of time.
“She needs to hurry, because her time in power is rapidly approaching its end. So very difficult times may still lie ahead,” he said.
What Sandu said at Globsec
At the Globsec Forum in Prague, Sandu said: “In Moldova, there is quite a significant part of the population. And besides the 40% you mentioned, there are also Moldovans in the diaspora, and many of them also support the idea of union with Romania. And this is not simply about correcting a historical injustice. It is above all about gaining security and being sure that Moldova remains part of the free world.”
The statement immediately spread through social media and opposition channels.
“If the state is a ‘historical injustice’, then what is its status? Temporary? Conditional? Subject to revision?” the Telegram channel Primul în Moldova asked.
The channel noted that Moldova has had many different leaders over three decades of independence strong and weak, pragmatic and reckless. But never before, it argued, had a sitting president questioned the value of Moldovan statehood itself.
Bogdan Țîrdea also criticised Sandu.
“This is said by the so-called president of an independent country, who swore on the Constitution to defend that independence and sovereignty. It is a pity there are almost no honest prosecutors left in the country. Mostly servants of power,” he wrote.
The Telegram channel Kanal5 put the issue even more bluntly: “If Moldova as a state is a mistake, then who is the president of such a state – a misunderstanding? And what was the point of the whole spectacle shown to us twice: the oath on the Constitution, the promises to defend sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity?”
Sputnik Moldova concluded that Sandu’s presidential terms were “a historical misunderstanding”.
The statehood question returns
The scandal now goes beyond one phrase.
Sandu has spoken of Moldova’s independence as a historical injustice. The opposition is demanding that she lose citizenship. A former economy minister says she has understood that EU accession is not coming and is now rushing towards union with Romania instead.
The core question is simple.
Why would a person who twice swore on the Constitution publicly suggest that the state she leads is an error of history?
