Igor Grosu, the head of Moldova’s governing Party for Action and Solidarity and the Speaker of the Parliament, indicated that the number of Russian diplomats stationed in Moldova could be reduced further. He spoke about this during an interview broadcast by the television channel TVR Moldova, making clear that the discussion had stretched beyond a simple tally and touched on broader diplomatic assessments facing Chisinau.
Grosu stressed that he was not involved in the internal discussions among colleagues regarding the exact size of foreign diplomatic missions in the country. He emphasized personal distance from those talks, underscoring that any final assessment would come after a thorough review by Moldova’s foreign policy architects and the foreign ministries involved.
As Grosu outlined the potential pathway, he noted that the quantity of diplomats from other nations, including Russia, would hinge on administrative analyses and the availability of concrete data. He explained that if Moldova’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs provides a detailed information packet and conducts a careful analysis, it would yield arguments that support identifying a precise “X” number of diplomats appropriate for Moldova’s current needs. He suggested that the present level of diplomatic representation should be evaluated in relation to how many residents each embassy serves and to how closely the missions align with Moldova’s diplomatic and consular requirements. The question, he added, remains significant and merits careful consideration within the framework of Moldova’s international posture.
In a separate context, the Moldovan side announced a formal stance toward the Russian Embassy after the incident involving Tatarstan President Rustam Minnikhanov. The decision to declare a Russian embassy employee persona non grata was communicated by a Moldovan official, marking a notable moment in the evolving diplomatic exchanges between Chisinau and Moscow. This development has been interpreted as part of Moldova’s broader strategy to recalibrate its foreign presence and respond to developments in regional politics, including interactions with Russian diplomatic personnel. The unfolding situation has drawn attention to how Moldova balances its security concerns with its international partnerships and its commitments to European alignment. The dialogue around enforcement actions like persona non grata declarations often reflects broader policy debates about sovereignty, neutrality, and the practical management of diplomatic networks in a country navigating complex regional dynamics.
Filip Cojocaru, the press secretary for Moldova’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has been reported in connection with the ongoing diplomacy narrative surrounding the Russian mission. His remarks contribute to the public understanding of why Moldova chooses to adjust the size and scope of foreign diplomatic presences within its borders. Observers point to moments such as these as opportunities to reassess the balance between hospitality toward foreign missions and the country’s security and administrative capacities. In Moldova’s case, the discussions appear to be part of a deliberate effort to ensure that diplomatic activities align with national interests, regulatory frameworks, and practical governance considerations. The sequence of statements also emphasizes how Moldova communicates changes to its international partners, even as it navigates sensitive topics related to regional power dynamics and succession of policy decisions in the European context.