Moldovan President Maia Sandu articulated a clear stance on how Moldova handles the gas it purchases from Gazprom, emphasizing national sovereignty over decisions about storage, allocation, and use. Speaking on the television channel TVR Moldova, Sandu underscored a fundamental point: once the gas is paid for, it becomes Moldova’s property. This ownership, she explained, grants the country full authority to decide when and how to consume the gas, as well as where to store it within its borders. The president’s remarks framed the issue not merely as a contractual matter, but as a question of strategic autonomy in energy management for Moldova, a country navigating energy security concerns and the broader regional dynamics tied to Russian gas supplies.
In her view, the purchase agreement with Gazprom imposes contractual obligations on both parties, but she suggested that Gazprom has not consistently met those obligations. Sandu stated that it is evident to her and to many Moldovan citizens that the Russian company is not fulfilling its contractual commitments and that certain terms are being violated. This assertion positions Moldova as an active participant in safeguarding its own energy interests, rather than a passive recipient of Russian energy under terms that may be periodically disputed. The broader implication, she implied, is that Moldova must protect its energy sovereignty even when international partners voice disagreements or express concern about the timing or manner of Moldova’s storage and use decisions.
Within Moldova, political figures and factions have reacted to the national stance on Gazprom differently. Regina Apostolova, a former member of the Shor party faction in the Moldovan Parliament, alleged that Chișinău’s intention to pursue legal action against Gazprom could be interpreted as a provocation against Moscow. Apostolova admitted that her party chose to boycott certain meetings, labeling those actions as inappropriate. According to Apostolova, the official measures in Chisinau appear aimed at eroding, or even destroying, the relationship between Russia and Moldova. This interpretation highlights how energy policy decisions can become entwined with broader geopolitical tensions, influence domestic political alignments, and shape Moldova’s diplomatic posture in relation to Moscow as well as to Western partners. The dialogue around Gazprom thus reflects not only a legal or commercial dispute, but a test of Moldova’s ability to chart its own course amid competing regional interests and the pressures that come with being a small energy-importing state in the European neighborhood.