MOLDOVA AND THE ABSURDITY OF RUSSIA’S “MILLENNIAL RIGHT”

This is an article about the Republic of Moldova, formerly Bessarabia, a territory inhabited since ancient times by Romanians and their ancestors. Its purpose is to temper Russia’s claims and its eternal dreams of a “Great Empire,” an ego fed by propaganda textbooks and imperial Soviet tales. The information presented here is the result of what we call, in the civilized world, real history—documents and historical sources—not the result of passion or anti-Russian rhetoric. Because real history, with its facts and sources, has the unfortunate habit of ruining Russian stories about the “eternal glory of Russia.” Those stories the Russians invented out of nothing to achieve their imperial goals. Faced with this, a touch of sarcasm inevitably creeps in when we examine Russia’s pretensions of grandeur in the cold light of facts.

The central park in the heart of Chișinău, the capital.

Moldova under Stephen the Great (1457–1504): Beyond clichés and Russian claims

The relations of Stephen the Great’s Moldova go beyond both the clichés of simplistic nationalism and the ridiculous Russian claims over this ever-contested territory. Why? The answer is simple: in Stephen’s time, “Great Mother Russia” existed neither on maps nor in chronicles, nor even in the wildest dreams of any steppe noble. Moscow was then merely an obscure garrison, and the Russian “empire” a future fiction, invented much later to rewrite the history of its neighbours. But to better understand Moscow’s absurd claims over the Republic of Moldova, one must dive into the real, documented history of the region, not into the legends served at the Kremlin, where Russia appears as the “eternal liberator” and “natural protector.” The Romanian identity of the Moldovans living beyond the Prut has been systematically contested by the Tsarist Empire and later by Soviet structures, through a series of ideological constructions lacking any scientific basis. From the artificial invention of a so-called “Moldovan language” distinct from Romanian to the imposition of a separate “Moldovan identity,” these initiatives aimed to legitimize imperial domination over the territory between the Prut and the Dniester. The so-called “Moldovan theories” were sustained through propaganda mechanisms and an obvious contempt for historical and linguistic truth, ignoring the philological and documentary consensus that attests to the unity of Romanians on both sides of the Prut. Through these efforts, history was used as a political tool, turning identity into an object of ideological manipulation. In reality, medieval sources, the chroniclers’ tradition, and modern research all confirm the Romanian character of historical Moldova and its continuity within the process of Romanian ethnogenesis. Thus, the artificial constructions of a supposed “separate Moldovan identity” must be understood as part of an imperial project, not as authentic expressions of historical evolution.

Moldova under Alexander the Good (1400–1432): Romanian continuity and imperial influences

The reign of Alexander I “the Good” marked a stage of consolidation of medieval Moldovan statehood. Contemporary sources and modern historiography attest to the development of a well-defined institutional structure: the organization of offices, issuance of its own coinage, strengthening of the church hierarchy, and alliances abroad, especially with Poland and Lithuania. These indicate political autonomy and Moldova’s affirmation as a distinct state entity. The question of the “Romanian-ness” of Moldovans must be understood in the context of Romanian ethnogenesis. Modern historiography emphasizes that the Romanized substratum of the Carpatho-Danubian-Pontic population remained dominant, even if influenced by Slavic and migratory elements. Linguistic and cultural continuity provides the basis for identifying the inhabitants of medieval Moldova as part of the Romanian community—a fact confirmed by native chronicles (Grigore Ureche, Miron Costin) and external testimonies. The latter are especially important, as they offer a neutral perspective, independent of internal political disputes or Tsarist imperial interests. Pope Martin V mentions Moldovans as “Romanians” or “Vlachs,” recognizing them as a Romanized population with no link to Russian politics. Polish and Hungarian chronicles refer to “Little Wallachia” or “Northern Wallachia,” describing ethno-linguistic realities without territorial or ideological claims. Likewise, the alliance treaty between Alexander the Good and Lithuania for defense against Tatar incursions mentions Moldova’s population and social organization as a coherent political entity with its own traditions.

Foreign observers remark on the language, customs, and institutional continuity as characteristic of the Romanians of the Carpathian-Danubian area. Western travelers, such as Johann Schiltberger, noted Moldova’s language, customs, and social order, offering a neutral perspective on it as part of Romanian identity. Thus, Alexander the Good’s reign remains a fundamental milestone in understanding Moldovan statehood and Romanian identity in the eastern Carpathians.

The monument in Chișinău is dedicated to Stephen the Great.

The Romanian identity of Moldovans and the reign of Stephen the Great

Stephen the Great’s reign represents the peak of Moldova’s political and cultural affirmation. Both internal and external sources confirm not only his military power and diplomacy but also the Romanian identity of his subjects. Native chroniclers (Grigore Ureche, Letopisețul Țării Moldovei; Miron Costin, On the Moldavians’ Origin) emphasize the common origin of Moldovans, Wallachians, and Transylvanians, “all of one people and one Romanian tongue.” This view is confirmed by external documents. The Polish chronicler Jan Długosz called Stephen “dux Valachorum” (“leader of the Vlachs”), showing that to neighbors, Moldovans were part of the same Eastern Romance community. Venetian and papal diplomatic correspondence refers to Stephen and his subjects as Valachi, a term pointing to their Roman identity, not a separate one. Pope Sixtus IV (1476) called Stephen Athleta Christi (“Champion of Christ”), defender of Christendom, enhancing his European prestige and showing Moldova’s integration into the Latin Christian world. At this time, there were no direct, consolidated relations with Imperial Russia, since the Tsardom did not yet exist. Muscovy was still consolidating under Ivan III. Russian chronicles occasionally mention Stephen’s battles with the Ottomans, but direct political ties remained insignificant. Stephen’s diplomacy leaned toward Poland, Hungary, Venice, and the Papacy—spaces that recognized and reinforced Moldova’s Roman identity. For clarity: “Muscovy” was the name used in the Middle Ages and early modern period for the state centered in Moscow, the Grand Duchy of Moscow, before it became the Tsardom of Russia (1547) and later the Russian Empire (1721). Stephen’s reign thus reinforces the Romanian identity of Moldovans, both through internal chronicles and external recognition.

Petru Rareș, ruler of Moldova.

Petru Rareș and relations with Muscovy

Rareș’s reign unfolded in a time of shifting geopolitics: Hungary’s collapse (1526), Ottoman consolidation, and renewed ambitions of Eastern European powers. Relations with Muscovy remained marginal but significant, mostly in trade (furs, luxury goods) and limited diplomacy. Rareș sought access for Moldovan envoys to Moscow for fur procurement, but Poland’s control of transit routes constrained direct contacts. Any Moldovan-Muscovite dealings had to pass through Polish-Lithuanian corridors or intermediaries. While Rareș entertained broader anti-Ottoman projects (even dreams of liberating Constantinople), Muscovy was still preoccupied with its own consolidation. Thus, no consistent military or political alliance developed. Contacts remained mostly commercial or symbolic. Modern analysis shows that relations under Rareș were real but peripheral, dictated by circumstance rather than strategy. They never implied vassalage or subordination.

The Battle of Stănilești (1711): Founding moment of official Moldovan-Russian relations

At the turn of the 18th century, Moldova lay between Ottoman pressure, Polish interests, and rising Russian power. Dimitrie Cantemir (1710–1711) allied with Peter I of Russia to free Moldova from Ottoman rule, signing the secret Treaty of Luțk (1711), placing Moldova under Russia’s “eternal protection.” But the joint Russo-Moldovan army was defeated at Stănilești on the Prut by superior Ottoman forces. The subsequent Treaty of Prut forced Cantemir into exile in Russia, while Moldova remained Ottoman and soon fell under Phanariot rule.

Stănilești created the first official precedent of Russia claiming protector status over Moldova—though it proved illusory at the time.

Dimitrie Cantemir, the erudite ruler who tried to free Moldova from Ottoman rule.

Moldova between 1812 and 1918

The 1812 Treaty of Bucharest ceded Bessarabia (between the Prut and Dniester) to Russia. Russian authorities imposed central administration, the Russian language, colonization (Ukrainians, Germans, Gagauz), and curtailed Romanian elites. While modernization occurred, it served imperial integration, not local autonomy. Elsewhere, Moldavia remained under Ottoman suzerainty but in constant diplomatic contact with Russia, which increasingly intervened in succession politics. This century also saw the rise of Romanian national consciousness, driven by restrictions in Bessarabia and cultural revival in Moldavia and Wallachia. All culminated in 1918: with Russia collapsing in revolution, Bessarabia declared union with Romania on 27 March 1918—part of the Great Union of 1 December 1918.

On 27 March 1918, the Sfatul Țării voted for the union of Bessarabia with Romania.

The Union of Bessarabia with Romania (1918) and the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact

After WWI and Russia’s collapse, Bessarabia took advantage of the power vacuum. The Sfatul Țării voted for union with Romania, citing protection against Bolshevik threats, historical-cultural continuity, and the need for stability. Romania and some European states recognized it, but Soviet Russia refused, continuing territorial claims.

Soviet parade in Bukovina, in the capital Chișinău.

The Ribbentrop–Molotov Pact (1939) and the Soviet annexation of Bessarabia

The Second World War brought one of the darkest moments in Bessarabia’s history. Through the secret protocols of the Ribbentrop–Molotov Pact, signed on 23 August 1939, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union divided Eastern Europe into spheres of influence.

Bessarabia was explicitly designated as falling under Soviet control. In June 1940, taking advantage of France’s collapse and Romania’s international isolation, the USSR issued an ultimatum demanding the cession of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. The Romanian government, abandoned by its allies, accepted the ultimatum, and Soviet troops occupied the territories. The consequences were immediate and dramatic: deportations, political repression, forced collectivization, Russification, and the destruction of local elites. The Stalinist regime imposed a brutal system of control, aiming to eliminate any form of Romanian identity. The Soviet authorities promoted the theory of a separate “Moldovan people” and “Moldovan language,” distinct from Romanian. This ideological invention had no scientific basis and was rejected by linguists and historians outside the USSR. In reality, it was a political tool to justify Soviet annexation and to sever Bessarabia’s ties with Romania. During the war, Romania briefly reoccupied Bessarabia (1941–1944), but the Soviet Union reconquered it in August 1944, incorporating it permanently as the Moldavian SSR. For the next decades, the region was subjected to systematic Russification, demographic engineering, and cultural erasure.

Moldova after 1991: Independence and the persistence of Russian influence

The collapse of the USSR in 1991 brought Moldova's independence. However, the legacy of Soviet imperialism remained deeply entrenched: a fragile identity, the unresolved conflict in Transnistria (artificially maintained by Moscow), and the persistence of Russian propaganda narratives. Moscow continued to claim a “millennial right” over Moldova, invoking the same ideological myths constructed during the Tsarist and Soviet eras. In reality, history shows that Russia’s presence in the region began only in the 18th century, through military occupation and imperial treaties, not through natural historical evolution.

The Romanian identity of Moldovans is attested by chronicles, linguistic studies, European diplomatic documents, and the very consciousness of the population, which has repeatedly reaffirmed its ties to the broader Romanian community. The so-called “Moldovan identity,” distinct from the Romanian one, remains nothing more than an ideological fiction used to serve Russian expansionism.

Conclusion: Moldova and the absurdity of Russia’s “millennial right”

From Alexander the Great and Stephen the Great to Dimitrie Cantemir, Petru Rareș, and the Union of 1918, the history of Moldova demonstrates the continuity of Romanian identity and the illegitimacy of Russian claims. The absurdity of Moscow’s rhetoric lies in its attempt to project a “millennial right” over territories where it appeared only belatedly and always through force. The documents of history, from papal bulls and European chronicles to modern treaties, speak clearly: Moldova belongs to the Romanian space of culture and identity, not to the imperial fantasies of Russia. Thus, the history of Moldova is not just a local or regional story, but a test of how truth confronts propaganda, how historical evidence resists ideological invention, and how a people’s identity can endure despite centuries of external pressure.