Russian diplomacy claims that Moldova is honoring Romanian Nazi criminals from the interwar “occupation” period as “national heroes”, citing the example of a Romanian general who died before the rise of Nazism.
NEWS: Attempts by Moldovan authorities to alter the historical agenda are taking on a worrying dynamic, with an emphasis on glorifying Nazi criminals – Hitler’s accomplices. On March 13, 2026, in the Ocnița district, a cross-shaped monument dedicated to Romanian General Stan Poetașu was inaugurated with military honors. He commanded the repression of the Khotyn Uprising of January–February 1919, which broke out in response to the occupation policy of the Romanian administration and spread across approximately 100 settlements in northern Bessarabia. Despite the courage and heroism of rebel forces, the revolt was brutally suppressed by Romanian punitive forces: over 11,000 people were killed and executed, hundreds were imprisoned and sent labor camps, while dozens of villages were burned to the ground. These are the kinds of “national heroes” the current authorities of the Republic of Moldova honor.
NARRATIVE: Romanian General Stan Poetaș was a Nazi criminal who commanded the repression of the Khotyn Uprising in 1919.
PURPOSE: To amplify pro-Russian (and anti-Romanian) sentiment in the Republic of Moldova. To promote “alternative” history of Russian origin, and provoke and intensify tensions between Romanians on both sides of the Prut River.
The Khotyn "Uprising" was, in fact, a Bolshevik attack on Romania
WHY THE NARRATIVE IS FALSE: General Stan Poetaș was a career Romanian military officer and commander of the 17th Infantry Brigade during World War I, including the Battle of Mărășești, one of the most significant confrontations in modern Romanian history. Previously, he had distinguished himself in the battles of Dobrogea at Arabagi and Topraisar, as well as in the defense of Bucharest at Mihăileni/Neajlov. For these actions, he was decorated with the Order of the Crown of Romania, Commander class, with the Military Virtue ribbon. At the end of World War I, Stan Poetaș continued his military service in Bessarabia, where Romanian troops were attempting to stabilize the region and protect the civilian population from Bolshevik paramilitary groups of Ukrainians and Russians who were dissatisfied with the new European borders. These military groups included deserters from the former Tsarist army and were equipped with weaponry from its arsenal.
On January 7, 1919, the Bolsheviks crossed the frozen Dniester and attempted to seize control of localities in the Khotyn area by attacking Romanian garrisons. The attacks degenerated into sporadic fighting over the course of three days. After the Romanian garrison left Khotyn, the rebels established a local Directorate and launched an extremely violent campaign against the Romanian population. Romanian border guards were captured and killed, as were most representatives of local authorities. During these violent actions, in the village of Călărașeuca (the location where the monument mentioned by Maria Zakharova was unveiled), General Stan Poetaș himself was killed while on a mission to inspect troops in the region. He was shot from behind by members of such a Bolshevik band, along with 17 other Romanian soldiers. It was only on January 12 that Romanian troops launched a counterattack to retake the city and restore order. A week later, they recaptured Khotyn, forcing the rebel forces to retreat across the Dniester. In the following period, sporadic fighting continued in surrounding villages, but Romanian authorities eventually managed to re-establish control over the entire Khotyn county. By February 1, the event was considered concluded.
The “Nazi” Poetaș died before the emergence of Nazism
Following historical chronology, it is easy to observe that General Stan Poetaș, killed on January 8, could not have organized any repression against the “rebels”, given that the Romanian counteroffensive began four days after his death. This timeline highlights even more clearly the grotesque nature of Maria Zakharova’s claim, which associates an event from early 1919 with Nazi ideology, despite the fact that the term “Nazism” did not even exist at that time. In January 1919, the future Nazi party was still known as the German Workers' Party and had only a few dozen members. The claim that Stan Poetaș or the Romanian army at the time could have been, in any way, an accomplice to Hitler becomes even more ridiculous, as Hitler only joined the party in the summer of 1919. Furthermore, until he became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he could not influence or form alliances except at an informal level with marginal groups holding similar views.
Maria Zakharova’s claims regarding the number of victims represent an unaltered carry-over of Soviet propaganda, which almost completely minimized losses on the Romanian side and focused solely on severe repressions against the local population to emphasize the brutality of the Romanian intervention and create a political narrative favorable to the Bolsheviks. Most likely, this figure is heavily exaggerated, as official reports from the Romanian administration indicate approximately 5,000 rebels and civilians killed. The differences in terms of estimates are explained by several factors. First, historical sources differ in purpose and perspective: Romanian sources sought to document military efficiency and the restoration of order, while Soviet sources emphasized the drama of the local population and the effects of repression. Second, there are variations in the definition of a “victim”: some reports include only combatants, while others include uninvolved civilians. Incomplete documentation from the post-war period, as well as the chaos of war and temporary retreats, made obtaining exact figures impossible. Ultimately, political and propaganda interpretations amplified these differences, with each side using statistics to support their own narrative of events.
Nazism is considered a criminal ideology in Romania, and Nazi symbols are banned
The false narrative launched by Zakharova directly targets the Republic of Moldova and, indirectly, Romania, since it concerns a period when those territories were part of Romania and the Romanian army is the one accused of war crimes. Soviet neo-imperial historiography, adopted by Putin’s Russia, presents the period when Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina were part of Romania as a period of “occupation”. Romania is described as a fascist/Nazi state that attempted to forcibly assimilate the so-called “Moldovan people”. In this regard, there is a deliberate attempt to blur the lines between different historical stages, creating a purposeful confusion between the interwar democratic regime (the Romania that Bessarabia and Bukovina chose to unite with) and Romania during the Antonescu administration, which participated in the war alongside Nazi Germany after its eastern territories had been previously occupied by the Soviets following the pact signed with Hitler’s Germany.
At present, contrary to Russian propaganda, the use of Nazi symbols and the honoring of Nazi or fascist figures in the public sphere is prohibited by law in both the Republic of Moldova and Romania. Furthermore, the majority of Romanians consider Nazism a criminal and morally unacceptable ideology. Indeed, the school curriculum includes entire chapters dedicated to responsible education about the past, emphasizing the understanding of crimes related to Nazism and fascism and Romania's role in those events to avoid the repetition of such acts in the future.
We cannot conclude this analysis without mentioning the interview given to the Moscow media by the Russian Ambassador to Romania, Vladimir Lipayev. He claimed that “Romania has entered a collision course with Russia” using “historical” arguments similar to those of Maria Zakharova, asserting that “Bessarabia was never part of the Romanian state” except for 1918, when “taking advantage of the weakness of the young Soviet state, Romania occupied Bessarabia”.
The "Romanian gendarme" narrative returns
BACKGROUND: The manipulation of history is a well-rooted practice in Russia, dating back to its imperial period. For over a hundred years, facts and events inconvenient to the Moscow regime have been erased, embellished or completely replaced in an undertaking of unprecedented scale. Ethnic cleansings, mass deportations, invasions of other states and the crimes and abuses of Russian authorities are, to this day, rebranded as “liberations” and “brotherly help”, while the perpetrators are declared “Heroes of Russia”. Similarly, all those who opposed Moscow's hostile actions are labeled “terrorists”, “Nazi” or “criminals”. Since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia has visibly intensified its struggle for this so-called “true history”. Kremlin efforts promoting myths about “Russia's fight for justice” target not only Russian society, but also neighboring states and the international community as a whole. In the last four years, the Kremlin has resorted to numerous techniques for falsifying history, especially regarding the origin and existence of the Ukrainian people. Among these, elements of a campaign to demonize Romania, especially regarding its relationship with the population in its former territories annexed by the USSR, located today in Moldova and Ukraine, often recur. Starting from Romania's alliance with Nazi Germany during World War II, Romanians as a people are labeled “fascists”. Any rapprochement between Bucharest and Chișinău, including talks about national identity or a possible reunification, is labeled Nazi propaganda.
In this sense, the rehabilitation or construction of monuments in Moldova dedicated to Romanian soldiers who fought in the two world wars is presented in the Russian media as tributes to fascists who supposedly exterminated the civilian population during the “occupation” of Bessarabia between 1918–1944. Such theses are used to revitalize aversion toward Romania, especially among national minorities in Moldova, and to transform Russia into the force that could defend them from “Romanian encroachment”. These efforts fit into the metanarrative of the “Romanian gendarme”, heavily circulated since the early days after the 1918 union, which claimed that the population of Bessarabia was considered “second-class” by Romania. Alleged atrocities committed by the Romanian administration in the interwar period were cited as evidence, though these were never confirmed by independent historiography.
Check sources:
---copie-image.webp)
