The main news of the weekend was centered around the presidential debate between Maia Sandu and Alexandr Stoianoglo. The debate, which took place at the Palace of the Republic in Chișinău, was an atypical event, with the candidates directly discussing to one another, without the presence of a moderator. The debate started at 10:00 and took place alternately, neither candidate speaking over the other, ending after one hour and 15 minutes, at 11.17. Both candidates aimed to sway undecided voters by presenting their visions for Moldova’s future.

IN SUMMARY: Sandu, the current president, accused Stoianoglo of being a “Trojan horse” for Russia, suggesting that his campaign is backed by figures like Veaceslav Platon, Ilan Șor, and Igor Dodon. She questioned his ability to lead the country towards democracy if he tolerates vote-buying practices. Stoianoglo, a former prosecutor general, countered by accusing Sandu of spreading hysteria and failing to provide concrete evidence for her claims about election fraud. He emphasized his commitment to maintaining open borders and preventing repression against political opponents. Stoianoglo also proposed a joint declaration with Sandu to guarantee Moldova’s European integration, which Sandu dismissed as insincere, since Stoianoglo boycotted the referendum on EU integration. The debate touched on foreign policy, with Stoianoglo advocating for balanced relations with all neighboring countries, including Ukraine and Romania, while Sandu criticized his ties to Moscow – while Stoianoglo said that “we support Ukraine”, Maia Sandu replied: “Kyiv knows that you are Moscow’s man”. Economic issues were also discussed, with Sandu highlighting her administration’s efforts to double pensions and increase salaries, while Stoianoglo accused her government of incompetence and failing to mitigate the economic impact of the war in Ukraine.

KEY ISSUES:

• Maia Sandu opened the televised debate by expressing her desire to engage with a serious candidate on Moldova’s issues and solutions. However, she lamented that instead, she was facing a “Trojan horse,” implying that Alexandr Stoianoglo was a puppet for others who seek to control the country. Sandu asserted that no Moldovan wants to be governed by those behind Stoianoglo.
• In his opening statement, Alexandr Stoianoglo guaranteed that Moldova’s borders would remain open and promised there would be no repression against political opponents or usurpation of justice. He also proposed to Maia Sandu that they sign a joint declaration in the coming days to guarantee the irreversibility of Moldova’s European integration, emphasizing his strong support for this course.
• During the debate, Alexandr Stoianoglo demanded explanations from Maia Sandu regarding her claim that 300,000 votes were stolen in the first round of the presidential elections, a round in which Sandu won by a 15% margin. Stoianoglo questioned the basis of Sandu’s assertion, noting that the police had only reported hundreds of such cases. Sandu responded by stating that her information, obtained before the elections, indicated that a criminal group had promised to deliver 300,000 fraudulent votes. She emphasized that even if the documented cases were over 100,000, it was still a significant concern. Sandu challenged Stoianoglo on how he could build democracy if he accepted vote-buying. Stoianoglo retorted that Sandu’s lack of concrete evidence was troubling and urged her to stop spreading hysteria and to control herself as the president.
• Maia Sandu accused Alexandr Stoianoglo of having connections with Veaceslav Platon, Ilan Șor, and Igor Dodon, and questioned why he wouldn’t disclose who was financing his campaign. Sandu suggested that Stoianoglo might not even know who his backers were, implying he would receive this information via SMS, similar to how vote-sellers are informed. Stoianoglo responded by demanding evidence for Sandu’s claims, asserting that she had no proof of his alleged connections.
• Maia Sandu questioned Alexandr Stoianoglo on how he would establish a good relationship with Ukraine if elected president. Stoianoglo responded by emphasizing his commitment to developing strong, friendly relations with all of Moldova’s development partners, including Ukraine, Romania, the European Union, the United States, Russia, and China. He assured that Moldova supports Ukraine in the current war and provides necessary humanitarian aid to Ukrainian citizens. Stoianoglo expressed confidence that under his presidency, Moldova’s relations with Ukraine would be stronger than they are now, which he described as merely decorative. Sandu countered by questioning the sincerity of Stoianoglo’s statements, suggesting that Kyiv views him as aligned with Moscow and backed by Igor Dodon.
• Alexandr Stoianoglo questioned Maia Sandu on why Moldova chose to join international sanctions against Russia, thereby losing trade relations with the country. He cited Turkey as an example, noting that despite being a NATO member, it did not join the sanctions. Sandu responded that the sanctions aim to stop the war and that Moldova, with its Western aspirations, could not afford for its citizens to face sanctions, such as being unable to conduct international banking transactions.
• Maia Sandu questioned Alexandr Stoianoglo about the advantages he enjoys from his Romanian citizenship, which he obtained several years ago. Sandu pointed out that while Stoianoglo benefits from being a European citizen, he did not support this status for others during the referendum. She challenged him on why he believes he should have the benefits of a European passport while many Moldovans either cannot or do not want to obtain Romanian citizenship. Sandu accused Stoianoglo of limiting others’ rights to the same advantages through his referendum decisions. Instead of addressing Sandu’s question in Romanian, Stoianoglo chose to switch topics and spoke in Russian. During the campaign, it was noticeable that Alexandr Stoianoglo spoke Romanian hesitantly, with numerous expression errors, indicating that he thinks in Russian and then translates his ideas into the official language of Moldova.
• Alexandr Stoianoglo acknowledged that Romania is Moldova’s main partner but also echoed a famous accusation by former Prime Minister Andrei Sangheli, suggesting Romania hasn’t provided significant support. Sandu countered, calling his statement an offense to Romania, and listed numerous important projects funded by Romania, including bridge construction, kindergarten repairs, cultural objectives, and the procurement of buses.
• Towards the end of the debate, Maia Sandu questioned Alexandr Stoianoglo about his past assertion that the bag given by Plahotniuc to Dodon contained money. Stoianoglo, who had previously stated in 2020 that he was convinced the bag contained money, now argued that it was irrelevant whether there was money or not. He emphasized that the case, based on the bag, was initiated illegally. Sandu pressed further, questioning Stoianoglo’s stance and his actions as former prosecutor general, highlighting his previous dismissive attitude towards illegal funding allegations. She challenged his understanding of democracy, criticizing his apparent tolerance for illegal political financing and questioning how he envisioned democracy if it was reduced to who had the most money to influence and destabilize the country. Stoianoglo defended his position, insisting that criminal cases should be based on evidence, not political declarations, and reiterated that the case was handled improperly. The “Kuliok” case, initially dismissed under Stoianoglo’s tenure, was reopened after his suspension and is currently under examination by the Supreme Court of Justice. A significant vulnerability for Alexandr Stoianoglo is his tenure as prosecutor general. In 2021, he decided to release oligarch Veaceslav Platon, who had been sentenced to 18 years in prison for his involvement in the theft of one billion dollars from Moldovan banks. When asked by incumbent president Maia Sandu why he made this decision, Stoianoglo did not provide a clear answer, merely asserting that he is not aligned with oligarchs and accusing Sandu of spreading false information about him. The most shocking statement was Stoianoglo’s claim that during his term, he did not arrest any businessmen or shut down any enterprises, justifying this by saying that people need jobs.

Live fact-checking

The debate between Maia Sandu and Alexandr Stoianoglo was marked by numerous falsehoods, according to Mihai Avasiloaie, the editor-in-chief of the portal StopFals.md. He noted that he identified around 15 lies and manipulations in the speeches of both candidates. Most of these falsehoods came from Alexandr Stoianoglo and were related to “false narratives of Russian propaganda”. Here are the most interesting points that the fact-checkers pointed out after the debate:

1. Alexandr Stoianoglo proposed a joint declaration with Maia Sandu to guarantee Moldova’s European integration, which journalist Mihai Avasiloaie found odd given Stoianoglo’s previous boycott of the EU integration referendum.
2. Stoianoglo claimed that joining international sanctions against Russia deprived Moldova of markets and energy resources. Expert Ilie Gulcă clarified that Moldova did not join all sanctions and still maintains economic relations with Russia.
3. Stoianoglo accused the current government of closing schools and other institutions. Journalist Constantin Hairedinov noted that these closures are due to demographic changes and the need for investment in underpopulated schools.
4. In response to Stoianoglo’s claim about TV station closures, Sandu said they were shut down for promoting war. Journalist Mariana Colun explained that closures were also due to dubious funding and affiliations with sanctioned individuals.
5. Stoianoglo stated there were no peace initiatives with Ukraine, only militarization. Journalist Vitalie Călugăreanu countered that Sandu consistently sought aid for Ukraine in her meetings with European leaders.
6. Stoianoglo’s narrative about population exodus was addressed by Călugăreanu, who explained that people are leaving to reunite with families in the EU, not due to poverty.
7. Stoianoglo denied any relationship with Veaceslav Platon or Ilan Șor. Journalist Mariana Colun refuted this, citing Stoianoglo’s admission of a long friendship with Șor’s family.
8. Stoianoglo claimed state funds from development partners were distributed politically. Expert Ilie Gulcă debunked this, showing that many projects were allocated to non-PAS-led municipalities.
9. Stoianoglo said the lemne.md, an information system for managing the wood distribution process in the Republic of Moldova, was available only in English. Petru Macovei and Mihai Avasiloaie clarified that it has always been available in Romanian and Russian.
10. Stoianoglo claimed he did not appear in campaign advertisements. Journalist Constantin Hairedinov pointed out a billboard featuring Stoianoglo in Bălți.

A second debate, with a moderator, was scheduled to take place this evening, but Stoianoglo refused to particpate. We will follow up on it in tomorrow’s brief.

This newsletter is part of our ongoing work with the Bulgarian-Romanian Observatory of Digital Media, member of EDMO.