Politicians play this card in their own interests. It is enough to recall at least how Vlad Filat and Iurie Leanca indicated specific years of joining the European family when they were prime ministers. Not to mention the governments of recent years. For them, this is not only a goal and a guide to action, but also a kind of indulgence from mistakes – we are leading you to Europe, so bear the “side effect” until the final stop. And everything will be fine there.
The opposition, in turn, uses these specific deadlines to convince citizens that they are being deceived. That there is no “final stop” as such, or that it is not located in the year to which the authorities refer. This means that they cannot be trusted, and neither can their promises.
Political analysis of the arguments of both is a complicated procedure. And it is hardly possible to find a side in this dispute that will be right and infallible in everything.
Therefore, let us dwell on the fact that the process of Moldova’s European integration is an objective reality. And the authorities, whoever they are represented by, one way or another will lead the country along the path of rapprochement with the EU.
Whether it will lead to full membership and, most importantly, when it will happen, is a multifaceted question. And the answer to it depends on many components. Most of them go far beyond Moldova’s borders.
Forecasting models and intuition
But whether we like it or not, the debate around how much closer EU membership is becoming for Moldova will grow every year.
A well-known expert and IT specialist Veaceslav Cunev has shown an extremely curious approach to this issue.
In his post on social network he wrote Ukrainian economist Oleksiy Kushch published his view on the prospects of Moldova’s membership in the EU, in which he claimed that Moldova has a “unique historical chance” to become a member of the EU in the near future. And advised to buy real estate in Moldova. Veaceslav Cunev decided to verify this statement with the help of three forecast models. Here is what he writes:
“I decided to check it not by intuition, but by three analytical methods. Methods that are used by the CIA, IARPA intelligence tournaments and academic political scientists of world renown.
Here’s what I got (links to detailed descriptions of each method are in the first comment to the post).
Method One – “13 Keys”.
Developed by historian Allan Lichtman. Correctly predicted every US presidential election from 1984 to 2020. The logic is as follows: it is not the rhetoric that decides the outcome – it is the structural conditions that decide. The method can be adapted to other areas of human activity, geopolitics for sure.
The second method is the model of collective choice.
Developed by NYU professor Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. It digitizes all the players: their positions, resources, interests and willingness to go to conflict. Calculates the most likely outcome through math, not feelings. Accuracy on a sample of 1000+ situations is above 90%.
The third method is Tetlock’s Super Prediction.
Good Judgment Project, University of Pennsylvania. Bayesian updating of probabilities. No “most likely” – just specific numbers that are adjusted for each new fact. At IARPA intelligence tournaments, Tetlock’s team’s accuracy was 30% higher than CIA analysts with access to classified material.
Prediction results
I ran all three methods under two scenarios: Moldova’s membership in the European Union by 2030 and by 2040.
By 2030: “13 keys” – 2-4%; BdM model – structurally impossible; Tetlock – 5-6%.
The verdict is unanimous. 2030 is a political message, not a real date.
By 2040: “13 Keys” – 35-45%; BdM Model – conditionally possible; Tetlock – 8-35%.
Triggers for membership
Now the main point. Under what conditions do the numbers change dramatically.
Each method names its own triggers.
“13 Keys” raises the probability by 2040 to 60-70% if two conditions are met simultaneously: Ukraine does not lose the war and Transnistria reintegrates or loses Russian cover. Remove at least one of them and the ceiling remains at 40%.
TheBdM model works differently. It looks at the players and their resources. And it sees the following: Russia has a high resource, but it converts it not through negotiations with Brussels, but inside Moldova – through internal influence. As soon as this resource falls, for example, due to military exhaustion – Transnistria instantly loses its stubbornness and goes for reintegration on Chisinau’s terms.
Veto-players inside the EU, like Hungary, never block permanently: they bargain. The price is known – money and concessions on other dossiers. It is solvable.
So, according to BdM, the chances increase dramatically under three conditions: Russia weakens, Brussels negotiates with veto players, pro-European elites in Chisinau hold power for at least two consecutive electoral cycles.
Tetlock is the toughest. His method multiplies probabilities rather than adding them up. That’s why even optimistic conditions produce modest numbers – until the main trigger works. This trigger is one: the end of the war in Ukraine without a Russian victory within two to three years.
If that happens – all four key probabilities in the formula grow simultaneously, and the total jumps from 8% to 30-35%. That’s not a guarantee. But it’s a conversation.
All three methods name the same variable. It’s the outcome of the war in Ukraine. Not the reforms in Chisinau. Not negotiations with Brussels.
If Ukraine wins – the probabilities rise sharply. If defeated, Moldova returns to Moscow’s orbit with a 65-70% probability.
Let me repeat that these are not my thoughts, but the results of analyzing the situation with the help of the three most advanced prognostic methods.
There is a chance, but it is fragile
Responding to the arguments of the Ukrainian expert, Vyacheslav Kunev further writes:
He writes about Moldova’s “unique historical chance” to join the European Union – he believes that now there is a unique historical situation favorable to this.
The structural analysis I cited above shows otherwise: the chance is there, but it is fragile. And it depends almost entirely on a variable that Chisinau does not control.
Therefore, for me personally, advising to buy real estate in Moldova as a way to make good money thanks to Moldova’s accession to the European Union in the near future without reservations about Ukraine is a bit bold.
Instead of conclusions
What is attractive about Veaceslav Cunev’s post and the approach he took? First of all, an unbiased approach.
Every fact or event has two assessments – factual and emotional. Very often we are guided by the second assessment, even when it clearly contradicts common sense and concrete data.
This is normal. A human being is different from a robot or an AI-agent in that he is alive, thinking and emotional. Being guided by emotions, hopes, and even dreams is the natural essence of a human being.
And mathematical models or analytical predictions are a product of mental activity. Where emotions are present in a minimal form.
Our politicians sometimes quite rightly talk about the goal of “making Europe at home”. That is what we should strive for.
And then the year of gaining full membership in the EU will become a secondary factor. As well as what assessment of this factor we should choose – factual or emotional.
