Moldovan society showed understanding and compassion for the Ukrainian refugees. At the same time, there is a large part of Moldovan society that tries to justify Russia’s armed attack on Ukraine even if a lot of blood is shed, many people were killed, among whom were children, older people and women, and a multitude of buildings are destroyed, including houses, schools and hospitals. A significant paradox is taking shape and can have a negative impact on Moldovan society itself. The experts invited to IPN’s public debate “Who approves of the war and why?” discussed why it happens so and what should be done to avoid a real big danger to the development and strengthening of society.
Igor Boțan, the standing expert of IPN’s project, said that in accordance with the international legislation, the war is armed fighting between states or groups of states aimed at achieving particular objectives by violent ways. “The UN Charter and the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land demand that the conflicting states should take all the measures to prevent war. If the sides do not reach a peace agreement, an ultimatum or a war statement need to be presented or it is a treacherous attack,” said the expert, noting the aggressive war is a crime against international peace and implies international responsibility. At the same time, the use of the armed force by a state is an act and a proof of aggression.
Igor Boțan said the Republic of Moldova in 2004 adopted the law on the state of emergency, siege or war that imposes particular restrictions. The Penal Code contains provisions that refer to crimes against peace and security, war crimes and articles that refer to genocide, inhuman treatment, etc. “As regards the moral aspect, the Bible is the benchmark here,” he stated.
“There are theories about the concept of a just and correct war and about the concept of an unjust war. These concepts refer to the state’s right to war and the rules of war. So, the state’s right to war consists of a set of legal and ethical conditions in which a war is waged and contains the principles of the right cause, the legitimacy of the authorities to start a war, the intentions to start it, the proportionality of using violence as a last solution,” said Igor Boțan.
Zinaida Gribincea, expert in psychology, journalism and communication, said that what has been recently seen in the public sphere, including online, reveals a multitude of very different opinions that are far from the humanitarian spirit. “In the case of the Russian-Ukrainian war, Moldovan society became massively involved and provided assistance to the refugees who fled the conflict zone. At the same time, there are many positive appraisals of the war and approvals of Russia’s expansionist policies. There are Moldovans who believe that the Soviet Empire can be restored,” she stated.
The expert noted those who approve of a war of aggression, regardless of its type, abide by incorrect human values. “If we refer to the war in Ukraine, both Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova are states that separated themselves from the Soviet Empire, but particular Soviet practices continue to be used in our region. There is that nostalgia for the USSR and phobias towards the Eastern aggressor. It is a paradox here as, even if we fear this power that can anytime conquer us, we are solidary in parts. I don‘t think we can now divide the positions on the war in Ukraine by ethnic principles, but what we can do is to realize when these opinions changed. Or what is going on in the neighboring country can equally affect us,” stated Zinaida Gribincea.
Valeriu Pașa, head of the WatchDog Community, said in Ukraine there is the same type of invasion as that of Hitler, when he attacked the Soviet Union, and the expression “treacherous attack” perfectly matches this situation. The fact that both of the sides involved in the war blame each other is the result of the way in which the involved people inform themselves and understand this world. “The consumption of information is a decisive factor in the way in which the people think and take attitude. This theory of relativization forms part of the propaganda instruments that are broadly used by the Kremlin in the West, primarily in the European countries, and also in the post-Soviet space. Everyone is presented as bad so as to protect the real attackers,” he stated.
According to Valeriu Pașa, it goes to political technologies designed beforehand that were even tested and measured sociologically. Their goal is to confuse public opinion and to reduce the negative impact on the Russian Federation at international level. “In the Republic of Moldova, we have massive disinformation waves. The social media have been the main distribution sources or channels since the start of the war as the volume of these types of information attacks in the media, mostly on TV, decreased a lot. They also decreased in the classical online space, on news websites, etc. But on social networking sites, they conduct orchestrated campaigns aimed at disseminating the Russians version or the Kremlin’s version of the events, about Ukraine’s guilt, aggressive nationalists or about the absence of losses among the Russian army,” stated the expert.
The public debate entitled “Who approves of the war and why?” was the 229th installment of IPN’s project “Developing Political Culture through Public Debates” that is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation.
