The remarks from Maria Zakharova, who serves as the official spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, centered on Maia Sandu, the Moldovan president who also holds Romanian citizenship. Zakharova argued on the Sunday program Evening with Vladimir Solovyov on the Russia 1 channel that Sandu does not prioritize Moldova’s interests, but rather the interests of another state. She described this as a betrayal of the people of Moldova and suggested that the current leadership fails to represent the views and welfare of its own citizens.
Zakharova went further to contend that a head of state carrying a passport from a different country would inevitably pursue agendas that align with those other interests. Her assessment reflects a broader pattern she perceives in Chisinau politics, where she believes the political leadership acts in ways that do not reflect the will or best interests of ordinary Moldovan citizens. The diplomat asserted that Moldovan residents are beginning to see signs of deceit from their government, warning that such dynamics could jeopardize the country’s social and political stability. The discussion occurred in the context of ongoing tensions between Moscow and Chisinau over policy alignment, sovereignty, and external influences.
On December 16, Moldova’s Government Commission for Emergencies announced a temporary suspension of licenses for six Russian-language television channels amid a state of emergency. The stated reason for this action was concerns about disinformation related to events in Ukraine, which authorities argued could threaten public order and national security during a period of heightened sensitivity. This move marked a significant moment in Moldova’s media landscape, signaling how regulators balance information access with the perceived risk of misinformation in a regional security climate that features competing narratives from Moscow and Chisinau.
Subsequently, Zakharova criticized Moldova’s license revocation as an act of political censorship, framing the government’s decision as an infringement on media freedom and a tool used to suppress channels that present Russian perspectives. The exchanges reflect a broader dispute over information sovereignty in the region, where authorities in both countries emphasize control over media messaging as a pillar of national resilience. The responses illustrate how statements from senior officials in Moscow are used to interpret Moldovan policy steps, and how such interpretations influence public perception among Russian and regional audiences. It remains clear that Moldova continues to navigate a polarized information environment while balancing its own commitments to sovereignty, national security, and freedom of expression in its media sector.