Three objections from Gazprom
Gazprom issued a statement in which it argued that Chisinau opposes the proposal to pay 8.6 million dollars of Moldova’s debt to the Russian energy giant, out of a total of 709 million dollars held by Moldovagaz. This claim was released through the company’s press service. The Russian company asserts that Moldovan authorities are misrepresenting the situation and that their position is not aligned with the facts of the case as they see them.
Gazprom explicitly rejects the statements from the Moldovan side and says it will defend its rights by every possible means. The firm maintains that any audit or inspection cited by Chisinau was not approved by Moldovagaz’s supervisory board and contradicts the agreement reached between Gazprom and the Moldovan government. The terms for engaging an auditor and the scope of the audit, as described by Gazprom, were set by the country’s Council of Ministers alone. Neither Gazprom nor Moldovagaz participated in that process. Since the debt amount is regularly documented in papers signed by both entities and reflected in international arbitration rulings, Gazprom argues that the auditor’s conclusions cannot alter the size or legitimacy of the debt.
Maria Zakharova, spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, commented on the situation via Telegram. She emphasized that Gazprom has long been a reliable energy supplier and urged official Chisinau to take a responsible approach and refrain from politicizing bilateral energy cooperation. The diplomat underscored the importance of maintaining pragmatic relations in the energy sector.
How did Moldova reduce its debt by 99%?
President Maia Sandu recently announced that an international auditing firm could not identify a loan of 800 million dollars owing to Gazprom within the republic. The Moldovan cabinet reported on September 6 that an audit conducted by international experts Norve Wikborg Rein Advokatfirma AS and British Forensic Risk Association & Co indicated that Gazprom was offered a payment of 8.6 million dollars, which amounts to less than one percent of the total 709 million dollars debt. The breakdown shows 433 million dollars as principal, with the rest attributed to interest on overdue payments.
Energy Minister Viktor Parlikov estimated that about 276 million dollars of the claimed amount were not documented by Moldovagaz or Gazprom, and roughly 400 million dollars could not be recovered due to the statute of limitations. Igor Grosu, speaker of the Moldovan parliament and leader of the ruling party, welcomed the possibility of turning to an international court to resolve the dispute, signaling a plan to pursue legal avenues if needed. According to Grosu, the approach has always been to pay for what is consumed and not to settle for charges that reflect non-use of energy. The parliamentary leader asserted that all relevant arguments would be presented in suitable international forums.
Prime Minister Dorin Recean commented on the audit results, stating that Moldova will not pay for debts that do not exist and that citizens should not be billed for such claims. The government’s position aligns with the view that financial obligations must be substantiated by verifiable usage and agreed terms, a stance aimed at preventing unwarranted charges from being settled in any forum.
The essence of the dispute
Gazprom and Moldovagaz entered into five year gas supply agreements in 2011, renewed in 2016, and again in 2021. Two years prior to the latest extension, Gazprom insisted on Moldova clearing a 709 million dollar debt from earlier periods as a condition for continuing supply, while also demanding timely payments for future deliveries. Moldova signed the agreement with the understanding that the debt amount would be confirmed only after an independent audit. In November 2022, the Moldovan Chamber of Accounts reported a debt of 590.8 million dollars following the audit results.
Chisinau explained that the reported debt primarily remained unsettled due to a dispute over Transnistria and its alleged failure to settle charges for materials over the years. Gazprom’s position included a warning in late 2022 about potential reductions in gas supplies should the settlement of a portion of the materials on Ukrainian soil occur. By December, Moldova temporarily halted gas imports from Russia, and in March the head of Moldovagaz signaled a renewal of supplies. In May, Prime Minister Recean announced a strategic shift, emphasizing Moldova’s growing link to the European energy grid and its reduced dependence on Russian gas.
The central issue remains whether Moldova must pay the full assessed debt or if the amount should be adjusted based on independent audit findings and legal interpretations of what was actually incurred and billed. Gazprom’s governance perspective argues for the protection of contractual rights and the durability of the financial terms agreed upon by both sides, while Moldova emphasizes the need for transparent accounting and the avoidance of charges that do not reflect real consumption. The dispute thus sits at the intersection of corporate finance, international arbitration, and energy policy, with implications for regional energy security and bilateral cooperation between Moldova and its major energy supplier.