A Moldovan lawmaker named Bogdan Tsyrdya suggested in an interview that Moldovan citizenship has not been granted to every resident as swiftly as events involving the Bi-2 musicians allegedly occurred. He framed a presidential decree as a move aimed at provoking Moscow, placing it within a broader struggle Moldova is said to wage in what he called a hybrid conflict with Russia.
According to Tsyrdya, eight Bi-2 members received Moldovan citizenship after a presidential decree. He argued this action fits into a wider effort to pressure Russia, noting that Russian diplomats have been expelled and journalists restricted, while Moldovan travelers to Russia reportedly encounter long airport delays. He claimed foreign agents are welcomed in Moldova with opportunities to perform and obtain citizenship quickly even if they do not speak the language, have no residence history in Moldova, no relatives there, and have not contributed to the country. He described these steps as deliberate and intended to provoke Moscow, alongside domestic moves such as proposed measures to strip citizenship from individuals under international sanctions. He labeled this as selective enforcement and criticized the notion that all Moldovans can obtain citizenship as quickly as the Bi-2 members.
Separately, reports indicated that Maia Sandu signed a decree granting citizenship to several Bi-2 members, with Moldova’s leadership board chair confirming the action via a messaging channel. Family members of the musicians were also reported to have received citizenship in the same step.
Balutsel had previously indicated that some Bi-2 members and their relatives had submitted citizenship applications under Moldova’s terms, noting that related documents would be forwarded to the President for consideration under provisions described as granting citizenship in Moldova’s interests. He added that Bi-2’s artistic work is highly regarded by multiple generations of Moldovan citizens, underscoring the cultural impact attributed to the group in the country.
Elsewhere, a lawyer named Sergei Zhorin commented that some Bi-2 members pursued Moldovan citizenship partly due to perceived prejudice against Russians living abroad. This remark highlighted the broader discussion in Moldova about national policy, inclusion, and international perception, with debates often addressing how citizenship rules intersect with regional relations.
Earlier discussions in Moldova also touched on security concerns related to border controls and the handling of Russians at the border under agreements with the European Union, reflecting ongoing sensitivity toward international movement and policy alignment in the region. The situation has thus become a focal point for conversations about national identity, foreign influence, and the mechanisms by which citizenship is distributed in Moldova today. In this nuanced environment, observers stress that citizenship decisions can carry political and social implications beyond individual cases, shaping public perception and Moldova’s relationships with neighboring powers and international partners.
Observers note that the Bi-2 episode sits at the intersection of culture, politics, and international diplomacy. Supporters of the citizenship grants argue that recognizing artistic contributions strengthens Moldova’s cultural landscape and its international visibility. Critics, however, caution that rapid or selective grants could raise questions about equality before the law and consistency with broader national interests. The evolving narrative continues to unfold as Moldova balances domestic concerns with its evolving geopolitical position in Europe and its ties to neighboring powers.
As Moldova advances discussions about citizenship, the Bi-2 case serves as a concrete example of how cultural figures can become symbols within larger policy debates. Analysts and residents watch closely to see how these decisions will influence Moldova’s social fabric, its stance on national sovereignty, and its strategy in dealing with regional dynamics in North America, Europe, and beyond, where Moldova’s governance choices are examined across different legal and political frameworks. The ongoing dialogue shows how individual cases illuminate broader questions about citizenship, equality, and national interest in a modern, interconnected world.