DINSINFORMATION: The plan to federalize Moldova was largely supported in Chisinau

NARRATIVE 1. The Kozak plan, proposed by Moscow, represented the best solution, agreed by society on both banks of the Dniester, for the settlement of the Transnistrian dispute. 2. Moscow is the key to solving the Transnistrian conflict, while Chisinau is torpedoing its settlement.

LOCAL CONTEXT / ETHOS: At the end of 2003, i.e. in the second half of the mandate of the communists and of Vladimir Voronin at the helm of the Republic of Moldova, Moscow and Chisinau were one step away from signing  the so-called “Kozak Memorandum”  (Dmitri Kozak, at that time the deputy head of the presidential administration at the Kremlin is considered the main author of the document), which provided for the federalization of the Republic of Moldova, in which the self-titled Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic would have had the status of a subject of the federation and the right to constitute its own state bodies - parliament , president, government, own constitution, state emblems, etc. The plan provided for an extended autonomy of Gagauzia as well, and the two autonomous entities would have had the right to appoint 13 of the 26 senators in the two-chamber parliament. The influence of Transnistria and Gagauzia in the Senate would have been even greater, given that its other 13 members were to be appointed by the House of Representatives, which would also have included representatives of Gagauzia and Transnistria. The Constitutional Court would have been formed in much the same way, and the "Moldovan" and Russian languages ​​would have had an equal role in the administrative system.

While holding about 35% of the Senate seats and appointing 4 of 11 judges to the Constitutional Court, Transnistria would have contributed less than 17% to the federal budget.

According to another controversial provision, Russia was to maintain its military troops on the territory of Transnistria for a certain period (up to 17 years, according to some sources, which is also referred to by the Russian MFA, or up to 49 years, according to another version of the document). In fact, according to Vladimir Voronin, quoted by Free Europe,  there were some 20 versions of the Kozak Memorandum.

Talks on the Kozak plan lasted about a year and several sources claim it was to be signed on November 25, 2003 in Chisinau, including by the Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who was reportedly turned back right after stepping on board the plane after it was announced that Vladimir Voronin had changed his mind. It happened in the context in which the draft of the document had triggered large protests from the opposition in Chisinau, and later some sources stated that there was pressure from abroad, especially from Washington, for the authorities in Chisinau not to sign the document.

PURPOSE: To present Moscow as the only power able to influence the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict and, respectively, the pro-European government in Chisinau as the source that hinders this process.

WHY THE NARRATIVES ARE FALSE: First of all, the statement of the Russian MFA that "the draft Memorandum (...) received support and was approved on both banks of the Dniester" is  false, because in Chisinau it caused massive debates and protests in society, out of worries that, in fact, its provisions would have led to the so-called "transnistrization" of the Republic of Moldova, that is, to keeping it within Russia's sphere of influence. Even the pro-Kremlin station NTV, presented in 2013, footage from the protests in Chisinau and stated that  the memorandum was drafted under pressure from Moscow.  

As shown above, Transnistria, which accounts for only about 11% of the territory of the Republic of Moldova, would have had excessive prerogatives and rights and could have blocked any important foreign and domestic policy decisions. The Russian MFA is actually promoting a document that would have kept the Republic of Moldova in its sphere of influence or, as some experts say, would have de facto transformed it into a new Kaliningrad.

The narrative that the Chisinau authorities would hinder the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict is not new either. In fact, Tiraspol is the one that, with the support of Moscow, blocked the settlement of the conflict citing false pretexts related to the so-called “ danger of Romanianization”, which it has been using as a false argument for over 30 years.