The BBC and the Manipulation of Moldovan History

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg330w2x7g3o

As previously stated in other pieces (linked below) - Moldova cannot join the EU unless Transnistria issue is solved. You can't have an unsettled border and join the EU or NATO.

It seems clear the goal is to put everything in place so that when Transnistria issue is resolved, Brussels and Chisinau can move quickly. This is also a signal to Moscow that the EU and NATO are thinking about Moldova.

But aside from these bits of information which aren't really new, there's also something very noteworthy in this article, a practice of historical manipulation and omission I keep discovering with the BBC.

Note that the timeline begins in 1812 when the 'Eastern part of Principality of Moldova annexed by Tsarist Russia and renamed Bessarabia'.

This is completely disingenuous as it presents the picture as if imperialist Russia is carving out territory from this otherwise independent state minding its own business. The Principality of Moldova was part of the Ottoman Empire and the Orthodox Christians living there (mostly of stock that would today be considered 'Romanian') were thrilled to be brought into the orbit of Orthodox Moscow and free from Turkish control and in particular the corrupt Phanariotes who ruled in their name.

What a misleading presentation by the BBC!

Shouldn't it also be mentioned that the northern half of the Principality of Moldova was captured by the Habsburgs - the region known as Bucovina? This region is today divided between Romania and Ukraine. Is anyone crying about this and suggesting that it be returned? In fact the whole Principality of Moldova ceased to exist. Apart from Bucovina, West Moldova is today the Eastern Romanian region of Moldavia, and the Eastern portion was part of the Russian Empire and then USSR. After 1991 the eastern region became the independent nation of Moldova and yet is split with the Transnistrian enclave in the east - right up against the border of Ukraine. The BBC is trying to oversimplify this rather complicated history.

The timeline also ignores the fact that in the 1850's-1880's you saw the creation of the Kingdom of Romania - which did not include Bessarabia (today's Moldova), which was (as stated) under Russian rule. For cultural and historical reasons the Romanians wanted it and so they grabbed it at the end of World War I when Russia was down and out - torn apart by unrest and revolution. Angered by this, Stalin later took it back and incorporated it into the USSR. As far as the Russians were concerned it was there land before Romania even existed.

This whole region was part of a contest between the Habsburgs, Romanovs and the Sultans in Constantinople. Territories frequently changed hands.

And yes, as the Russian Empire collapsed into revolution and civil war, nations like Romania and Poland pressed historic claims which led to further conflict in World War II. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 rekindled some of these historic disputes and some (like the case of Moldova) have never been properly resolved. But to suggest that Russian claims are lacking any historical basis is pure rot. If someone wants to 'right' the map of Central and Eastern Europe - good luck. There's no fixing it without someone losing. Ask the Hungarians - as much of historic western Moldova was part of their historic kingdom which then fell to the Habsburgs. Ask the Greeks. And some nations such as Ukraine tremble at the thought of corrected maps as their mostly contrived country would quickly be reduced to a fraction of its size.

And the BBC discredits anyone in Transnistria or Moldovan regions like Gagauzia from being pro-Moscow because they're simply prey to Russian propaganda and its information campaign. The BBC editors cannot fathom that anyone might reject the Liberal West along with its feminism and sodomy. Nor can they grasp that for tiny minorities, democracy isn't always that appealing. Is this ignorance on the part of these Western journalists or is it just pure deceit?

And of course no one in the West embraces anti-Russian or anti-Chinese sentiment because of information campaigns or propaganda, right?

The BBC does some good reporting but not on issues like this. This is the BBC at its worst. The sad thing is this - American outlets won't even cover these stories leaving Western audiences with little in the way of choices apart from their own curiosity to explore these questions, pursue the history, and question what they're being told.

See also:

https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2018/06/romania-and-prospect-of-moldovan.html

https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2022/03/thinking-several-moves-ahead.html

https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2019/12/europes-ghosts-essential-questions-and.html

https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2017/12/hungarys-bitter-road-through-modern.html

https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-contest-for-moldova.html

https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2021/10/moldovas-gas-crisis.html

https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2023/06/moldovan-intrigues-and-russian-threats.html

https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2024/06/orthodox-intrigues-in-moldova.html