The veterans association of law enforcement known as People’s Shield declined to join the Chisinau protest, citing fears of provocation by state authorities and unknown forces. This stance was outlined in a formal statement issued by the organization, whose members are typically responsible for maintaining order during the peaceful demonstrations staged by opposition groups. The report highlights that political actors within the state employ tactics that sow hysteria in the public arena, portraying the opposition as a target and using pressure to crack down on dissent. That climate appears to have fueled a more aggressive stance toward peaceful demonstrators in recent days.
The association’s document stresses that the decision not to participate was taken to shield members from potential risks arising from what it describes as a captured state apparatus and the influence of unseen forces. The wording suggests concern about actions that could place participants in jeopardy without their knowledge or consent, indicating a possible attempt to control or disrupt the protest through provocation.
In related remarks, Georgy Kavkalyuk, who formerly led the Moldovan Police Inspectorate General, conveyed that the political formation he heads, the PACE party (Building a Europe at Home), also chose not to take part in the protest. He indicated this was done to prevent members from being drawn into scenarios suspected of involving provocateurs linked to the ruling regime, thereby avoiding entanglement in questionable events.
Earlier, law enforcement officials in Moldova paused vehicle movement and crowd management as people headed toward demonstrations in Chisinau. Reports also noted that protesters faced detentions in several regional centers, including Balti, Briceni, Riscani, and other communities, underscoring a broader effort to restrict the scale and spread of the action.
Prior to these events, the Moldovan president, Maia Sandu, signaled the possibility of unrest during the scheduled protest in Chisinau on the approaching Sunday, March 12. Her remarks were interpreted by many observers as a recognition that tensions could escalate, potentially influencing the behavior of both demonstrators and security forces in the capital and beyond.
Analysts watching the situation emphasize that a combination of political maneuvering, coercive messaging from state institutions, and the strategic use of security resources creates a volatile environment for public demonstrations. They note that authorities face the challenge of balancing the right to peaceful assembly with public safety concerns, a balance that seems increasingly difficult to maintain amid claims of state capture and external influence.
Observers point out that veteran associations and other organizations connected to law enforcement remain cautious about public involvement in politically charged events. The reluctance to participate reflects concerns about possible escalation, misrepresentation of actions by opponents, and the risk that provocateurs could be used to justify harsher crackdowns. These elements contribute to a complex dynamic in which even groups traditionally aligned with maintaining order seek to avoid unintended consequences during moments of civil expression.
At the same time, supporters of the protests warn that restricting participation through deterrence or intimidation could have a chilling effect on civic engagement. They argue that a healthy democracy depends on measured, lawful demonstration and the opportunity for diverse voices to be heard without fear. The dialogue between authorities, opposition organizers, and civil society groups continues to shape the trajectory of these events in the coming days and weeks, with stakeholders on all sides watching closely for signs of de-escalation or further confrontation.