“In this regard, comparing the democracy in the Republic of Moldova, with all its very serious sins, which we feel on our skin, with that in Russia, we must emphasize at least some of the achievements of the Putin regime: blocking hundreds of thousands of media resources, TV stations, radio, Internet sources; sentencing hundreds of political prisoners, including for religious beliefs, to long jail terms. Of course, we should not forget about the series of people who were killed under mysterious circumstances.”
---

Qui prodest?

After the terrorist attack of March 22, 2024, committed against a crowd of people who gathered together in a recreational hall in a Moscow suburb, several hypotheses were issued about the possible masterminds behind the monstrous crime. Only a few hours after the terrorist attack, the deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, manifested himself, launching, absolutely predictably, the version of the involvement of the “terrorist regime in Kiev”. This is despite the fact that the U.S. authorities warned the Russian authorities at least two weeks earlier about the existence of information about the planning of terrorist attacks by a wing of the terrorist organization Islamic State (IS). The revenge for Russia’s crimes in Syria is supposed to be the IS’s motivation. The third version is shared and circulated by the Russian opposition, which considers that the terrorist attack is nothing more than a plan of the Russian intelligence services, aimed at strengthening society and justifying the additional mobilization of several hundred thousand people to continue the war against Ukraine. This latest version is also supported by the Ukrainian authorities.

In such circumstances, to figure it out, seeing to whom the staging of a terrorist attack would be suitable is the only correct approach. After obtaining his fifth presidential term on March 17, 2024, with a supposed 87% of the ballot, Vladimir Putin was to convince himself that he had the acceptance of Russian society for continuing the war against Ukraine. Respectively, it is unimaginable that organizing a terrorist attack, whoever ordered and committed it, less than a week after the election, cam shake Putin’s throne and his dictatorial regime. It is also unimaginable that the Ukrainian authorities would not understand this and would risk undermining Ukraine’s image as a victim of the Russian aggression by resorting to acts of terrorism on the enemy’s territory, with the imminent risk of losing the international support of its American and European partners, which it enjoys, while encountering great difficulties.

On the other hand, for international public opinion there is not enough evidence to support the version regarding the organization of the act of terrorism by the Russian intelligence services, as supposedly these did in 1999, ensuring Vladimir Putin’s ascension to the presidency. Currently, the interests of the Putin regime and the FSB from which this derived are limited to discrediting Ukraine so as to deprive it of international support and to justify the additional mobilization of 200,000-300,000 troops to continue the war against Ukraine. In such circumstances, it seems obvious that the terrorist attack is, however, more in line with the interests of the Putin regime. However, the U.S. and EU authorities prefer to insist on the relatively neutral version – the involvement of the IS in the terrorist attack.

The silence of the lambs

The Moldovan authorities, as well as the pro-Russian political parties, mourned the victims of the Moscow terrorist attack. However, there is a fundamental difference in attitudes. The point is that the pro-Russian parties, whose leaders are part of the pro-Russian imperial movement, tacitly support the Russian aggression against Ukraine, categorically refusing to condemn the war and terror against the peaceful population of Ukraine, as was the case with Bucha, etc., or against critical infrastructure, in order to cause crises that directly affect the civilian population. Moreover, pro-Russian, left-wing parties also tacitly support the authoritarian and dictatorial methods of the Putin regime against Russian citizens. And it’s not just about Russian opposition politicians, as was the case with Alexei Navalny, etc. The leaders of the pro-Russian parties are silent even when the repression of the Putin regime affects people who supported the annexation of Ukrainian territories, but who truly share ideas different from those associated with Russian fascism, such as socialist ideas.

To confirm the aforementioned statements, it is useful to give an example that seems to be extremely eloquent. Thus, currently, in the post-Soviet space there is no world-renowned scientific researcher, theorist of modern socialism, like the Russian sociologist, Boris Kagarlitsky, who was recently sentenced to five years in prison for allegedly “justifying terrorism”. The truth is that sociologist Kagarlitsky had the misfortune to make an uninspired remark about the Ukrainian attack on the Crimean bridge. Kagarlitsky’s arrest and conviction come to convince us that the Putin regime, in fact, is extremely sensitive to alleged terrorist dangers, sentencing citizens to long years in prison just for some unsuccessful expressions. On the other hand, when it suits it, the regime easily overlooks even serious warnings about possible acts of terrorism, as was the case with warnings from the U.S. authorities.

For us, the citizens of the Republic of Moldova, it matters that no political party in the country that claims to belong to the left-wing political movement – PSRM, PCRM or the Civic Congress, etc., no leader of them, some of whom had close relations with Boris Kagarlitsky, dared to adopt a trenchant public position in defense of this outstanding exponent of the contemporary socialist theory or even to oppose. They have all remained silent like lambs around the slaughterhouse.

About comparative democracy

All those who condemn the recent act of terrorism in Moscow, but do not condemn Russia’s war against Ukraine are hypocrites. Especially since they know that, after the collapse of the USSR, Russia caused a series of wars that produced hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of victims. Everyone understands that Vladimir Putin’s intentions to rebuild the Russian or Soviet empire - the name matters less - are camouflaged under the slogans of building a new world order or multipolar world. Unfortunately, these ideas are supported by a number of political parties in the Republic of Moldova, which are part of the mentioned Russian imperial movement, constituting the Fifth Column. In fact, it would not be a mistake to say that all parties that refuse to condemn the Russian aggression fall into this category. That’s because criticizing the effects of the aggression – the refugee, energy, financial, socioeconomic and other crises - without condemning one of their main causes, is a diversion of misinformation.

The irony is that the parties of the Fifth Column criticize the democracy in the Republic of Moldova, which they need to eventually get to power, and then demolish it in order to install a regime in the image and likeness of those in Russia or Belarus. In this sense, it is useful to resort to the use of a notion, such as, for example, that of comparative democracy. In this regard, comparing the democracy in the Republic of Moldova, with all its very serious sins, which we feel on our skin, with that in Russia, we must emphasize at least some of the achievements of the Putin regime: blocking of hundreds of thousands of media resources, TV stations, radio, internet sources; sentencing of hundreds of political prisoners, including for religious beliefs, to long jail terms. Of course, we should not forget about the string of people who were killed under mysterious circumstances.