Department of History, Chair for the History of Southeastern and Eastern Europe

After World War I the former Russian gubernia of Bessarabia changed its status to an autonomous republic then a Romanian province. Political transformations led to deep social changes of the Bessarabians: various forms of accomodation and resistance at individual and group level were developed, plans of regional reconfiguration were designed, group networks at local and transnational levels were built, and mobility strategies were experimented. While being deprived of economic and social privileges, the former Russian (-speaking) Bessarabian elite – landowners, nobleman, and public servants – contested the new status of the region. With the support of the Russian émigrés in Europe, a Russian perspective for Bessarabia as an alternative to the Romanian one was worked out. This peripheral project, drafted in Paris, London, Geneva and other European capitals, as part of a more complex “Greater Russia” plan, aimed at mobilizing US and European officials and public opinion against the Bolshevik regime and thus recover lost territories for Russia. The complex post-War processes shaped the heterogeneous and multidimensional character of Bessarabian/Moldovan identity - a pertinent and contested issue today as well.

During the last two decades more and more Moldovans apply for Romanian citizenship, mainly to be able to work and leave, temporarily or permanently, in the EU countries, while the Moldovan state cannot ensure good living standard for its citizens. The Romanian legislation on citizenship is periodically amended in order to facilitate the process of granting Romanian citizenship for the Moldovans, the arguments on the common historical, cultural and linguistic heritage being taken as a basis. On the
other side, the Moldovan state doubts the loyalty of its citizens that also became Romanian citizens. Simultaneously, the EU officials criticize the Romanian citizenship policy, which encourage the Moldovans to “enter the EU through the back door”. The article focuses on the non-academic debate that evolved around the issue of dual
citizenship for Moldovans and makes a series of recommendations for the development of a clearer citizenship policy of the Moldovan state, taking into consideration a range of internal and external factors, as well new individual and societal perspectives.

As a result of War, the Bolshevik coup d’etat and the dissolution of the Russian Empire, in 1918 Bessarabia changed its status from the Russian goubernia to the Romanian province. The political and social transformations determined ambivalent feelings of belonging and new political affiliations, urged for mobility choices, motivated for adaptation and resistance. The local elite, being caught in a tensioned competition between Russian imperial and Romanian national political projects, did not develop a different political perspective for the region, as it happened in different parts of Eastern Europe, but took either the Romanian or the Russian side. Although it was impossible to predict the future of Russia, the newly formed Romanian nation state that directed its support toward the social and national majority did not offer optimistic perspectives for those that once served Russia with loyalty and subordination.
The message of hope for those that felt deprived, ignored and marginalized came from the Russian émigrés political circles who took over the mission of the “long-distance nationalism” of the dismantling “Motherland”. During the Paris peace conference, they pleaded for the support of the anti-Bolshevik fight and the preservation of the pre-war Russian borders, including Bessarabia. The Bessarabian representatives of the former imperial elite thus joined the Russian émigrés to inform, propagate and persuade the Peace conference and the public that they vociferated the will of the population who rejected the Romanian regime and wished a Russian future for their region. The active intense propaganda against Romania with the use of official and hidden channels and taking different forms, as well the postponement of the final decision on the Bessarabian status by the conference due to a series of factors, echoed in the province and contributed to maintaining during the immediate post-war period of state of incertitude and nostalgia for the imperial past.

The author explains the implications of the Ukrainian crisis for Moldova’s territorial
security. Recognizing that the Euromaidan events were triggered by the division of opinion in
Ukrainian society with respect to joining the EU vs. the Russia-led Eurasian Customs Union,
the Moldovan public reacted similarly with an appropriation of such alternatives, reflecting
the country’s long-term search for a political, economic, and security policy. The Ukrainian
crisis added significant tension to the Moldovan context. The separatist Transnistrian region
has declared its readiness to become part of Russia and contribute to the “revival of the Russian
world”. Clearly, such pro-Russian separatism has, during the last two decades, represented
a discursive playground for destabilizing rhetoric in the region, affecting the Ukraine
as well as Moldova. External circumstances, in which the EU plays a crucial role, have led
both Moldova and Ukraine to counter their territorial vulnerabilities. Both seem interested
in making an effort to “defreeze” the Transnistrian conflict.