From the Editor
The Republic of Moldova is facing a period of serious political, institutional, and socioeconomic challenges. At times like these, there is a particular need not only for breaking news and commentary, but also for efforts to understand the deeper causes of current developments and the country’s possible paths forward.
Logos Press is launching a series of articles by Elena Radu dedicated to issues of the Republic of Moldova’s strategic development and the search for a new model of statehood in the context of global change.
An important note: the articles were received by the editorial board before the recent high-profile events in the country.
The concept proposed by the author is intended to spark discussion and does not claim to offer a universal answer. The editorial board does not necessarily share all of the assessments and conclusions presented, but considers it important to provide a platform for substantive public and expert discussion on issues that are significant for the country’s future.
Introduction
It is hard not to notice the multifaceted, multilevel crisis currently unfolding in the Republic of Moldova, which many euphemistically refer to as turbulence or a complex situation stemming from external factors beyond Moldova’s control.
To some extent, we are indeed in a situation that the Moldovan authorities have little control over. But only to some extent, for even what they do control is also in crisis.
There is a crisis of meaning, a crisis of institutions, a crisis of leadership, a crisis of action… Taken together, this results in our complete invisibility or very low rankings on the global map of the 21st century (the Index of Economic Freedom, the Global Innovation Index—which shows the “Republic of Moldova” brand to have zero value— patents for AI inventions, university and researcher rankings (viewed over time), and other significant indicators).
Why, then, is Moldova a consistent underperformer in these indicators? Undoubtedly, the answer lies in the inadequate quality of management—both public and private. However, values and guiding principles also play a significant role here. One might even say the primary one.
Based on my observations (as outlined in the article “Strategic Vision of the Republic of Moldova,” 2018—and many experts agree with this assessment)—decision-making bodies in Moldova lack a strategic vision for the country’s development over the coming decades. Unfortunately, the scope of vision among decision-makers continues to be limited to short budget and electoral cycles, ranging in duration from 1 to 4 years.
Furthermore, despite a paradigm shift in the world as early as 2011 (this date is approximate, covering a period of plus or minus half a year from March 2011, based on personal observations, trend analysis, and assessments by other analysts), today, in mid-2026, local administrative perspectives and actions in our country remain stuck in a rut, which generates and compounds errors in these very actions and the results expected from them.
One striking example is the situation with the labor force, the need for which is extremely acute in our country due to a systematically declining population and falling standard of living. We are among the top five countries in the world losing population the fastest! (Data from the International Monetary Fund and, for clarity, the World Atlas).
To raise the standard of living and address this problem, the Moldovan government formulated a long-term vision for our country’s development a year ago, expressed in a simple phrase: “Our products need added value.” (quote from the Moldovan Minister of Economy at public hearings on the Moldovan Development Plan in the context of Moldova receiving 1.9 billion euros from the EU, April 2025).
In my view, this goal does not align with 21st-century trends and is about 100 years out of date.
But since this vision was articulated as a guiding principle for national development, let’s examine what solution the Moldovan government has devised based on the conceptual framework it established.
Quite unexpectedly—it’s not about bringing their own citizens back home, but about bringing in unskilled migrant workers from Central Asian countries. The choice of the workers’ region of origin was justified simply: their mentality is similar to that of Moldovans, since we all come from the USSR and the CIS (quote from the head of a recruitment agency that brings migrant workers to Moldova, during a dialogue organized by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Republic of Moldova at the Palace of the Republic (Chisinau), October 2025.
After criticism of the quality of the incoming workforce (Moldova needs qualified engineers, but what arrives are unskilled laborers, couriers, and cleaners), officials seemed to abandon this decision. But only to, a year later—having failed to create the necessary conditions for directly involving Moldovan citizens in their own country’s economy and, consequently, failing to achieve the desired result of their efforts in the form of economic growth, adopt a similar decision—albeit on a lower level—to flood Moldova with low-skilled migrant workers from Nepal, Bangladesh, and India. And not just to bring them to Moldova, but to give them priority over Moldovan citizens—including financial priority in the form of cash benefits.
What is the end result? The erosion of Moldovan culture, the further displacement of Moldovans from the economy, and the country’s descent to even lower levels in pursuit of an “economic miracle” straight out of outdated textbooks—all at the expense of new, low-skilled, and low-wage workers? Already from Africa?..
Incidentally, in terms of our current level of development, we are right on par with underdeveloped African countries (Index of Economic Freedom). Apparently, the authorities are striving to cement our position there…
A similar problem regarding the motives for replenishing the labor force and the regions of origin of migrants, by the way, exists in neighboring Ukraine, EU countries, Canada… in all states that adhere to the civilizational view of the structural nature of current crises.
And this is a fundamental mistake, since it is time for all of us to realize that we are not in a structural crisis, but in a phase-specific one.
What is the difference? A structural crisis is when isolated breakdowns occur within an existing system (local or sectoral) that can be “repaired”—for example, through reforms or optimization.
A phase crisis is a global upheaval of established patterns, when a system has run its course and there is a need for a complete rethinking and a transition to a qualitatively new level.
Moldova is in the midst of a phase crisis!
This means that any reforms aimed at preserving or stabilizing the familiar system are as useless as a band-aid on a dead body.
This means that a conceptual rethinking and a fresh start for the Republic of Moldova are needed so that we can grow stronger, rise up, and proudly present ourselves to the world not as a country of the past, but of the present and the future. A country that produces not despondency, poverty, and a work ethic stuck at “half past five” (read: impotence and learned helplessness), but real development commensurate with the challenges of our time.
What does this require? First, we, as a country, must recognize ourselves not as objects, but as subjects of life and politics. And only then can we chart our next steps, shaping our own future.
What does agency give a country?
– A vision of the future. And not just any vision of the future, but a creative (!) vision of the future of its own state.
– Based on this clearly formulated and articulated creative vision of the future, an understanding of what kind of person the country needs to prepare for the future, and what kind of education system the state must have to achieve this.
– The country’s possession of its own culture and the definition of its cultural code.
– Based on the creative vision of the future, an understanding of the person of the future, the country’s culture, and the long-term development guidelines expressed in the cultural code, the formulation of its own paradigm and, as a result, the country’s reinvention in a new capacity and context.
More details will follow in the next articles of this series.
Elena Radu,
Director of the “Alfa” Institute for Strategic Branding (INBRASA).
Follow our updates
