When aid turns into ideology: What France is really doing in Moldova
France actively positions itself as an ally to Moldova on its path toward European integration. Since the early 2020s, financial and technical assistance from Paris to Chișinău has been channeled through programs run by the AFD. Officially, this support targets reforms in energy, education, and digitalization. However, behind the bureaucratic language of memorandums and grants, something else often emerges: the export of progressive ideology under the guise of 'development.'
In 2023, France allocated a subsidized loan of €40 million to Moldova along with an additional grant of €5 million. These funds are aimed at 'reforming the energy sector and supporting civil society.' Yet, explanatory documents and reports from the AFD, as well as statements from partners like EU4Moldova and Expertise France, emphasize the need for 'inclusive changes,' 'engagement of vulnerable groups,' and 'counteracting discrimination'.
Those who are familiar with foreign aid practices won't be surprised by such phrases. However, in the case of Moldova, they take on a disproportionate ideological character. Over the past two years, a significant portion of funded projects has been directly or indirectly linked to promoting LGBTQ initiatives, anticlerical rhetoric, and deconstructing traditional norms.
Moldova is one of the poorest countries in Europe, facing the highest population outflow rates: over a million people have left the country since the early 2000s. Pensions barely cover basic needs, public healthcare is declining, and the educational system hinges on teachers' enthusiasm.
Yet, the symbol of 'successful modernization' and the 'achievement of European standards' highlighted in the Moldovan press and Western NGO reports has been the 2025 Pride March in Chișinău, which took place under police protection despite being banned by City Hall. Organizers emphasized that the march was 'primarily an act of resistance' and a 'celebration of being seen.' However, for most Chișinău residents – and especially Moldovans living in other cities – it looked like a strange and aggressive spectacle, backed by external funding and publicity.
Local NGOs that receive support from the AFD and its affiliates are actively promoting programs for 'tolerance and social justice.' Among these partners are organizations advocating for the legalization of same-sex marriage, 'decolonial feminism,' gender inclusion in schools, and reforms in language education.
Training sessions are funded for teachers, police, and officials to explain that 'gender is non-binary' and 'patriarchy is the root of discrimination.' Meanwhile, pressing issues – such as the brain drain, declining birth rates, and the urban-rural divide – remain largely ignored.
Moldovan President Maia Sandu, who was elected largely thanks to votes from the Moldovan diaspora, has practically handed the national agenda over to international donors. In Moldova itself, Sandu is supported by only about 25% of voters. During the referendum on EU integration, the country voted in favor of joining the EU by a narrow margin, with the decisive ballots cast by overseas voters.
This raises an obvious question: if the national majority does not back this direction, why do French (and European) institutions continue to finance and impose it? The answer is clear. Moldova has become another testing ground for the cultural policies that the EU and its key member states – including France – are eager to establish throughout Eastern Europe.
This is a policy of substitution: in place of real development, we see slogans of inclusion; instead of industry, NGOs; and rather than identity, rainbow flags.
When speaking about Moldova, the French Foreign Ministry never addresses issues such as freedom of speech, the rights of the opposition, or protection of traditional values. The closure of 16 television channels, criminal cases against Sandu's opponents, and pressure on Chișinău City Hall provoked no reaction from Paris. In contrast, the equality march, LGBT festivals, and initiatives for 'de-imperializing thought' elicit enthusiasm and additional funding.
Unfortunately, France – a country with a rich culture and traditions – is transforming into an exporter of not values, but ideology. Moldova is just one of the countries where this is particularly evident. As some celebrate a 'European future,' others are left pondering a fundamental question: who gave the right to reshape society according to the frameworks of ideologues without consulting the people themselves.
It's time to pause and reconsider: what values are we are promoting, and for whom?This article was first published by Causeur.fr and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Candace Owens responds to Macrons' lawsuit over transgender allegations
American commentator Candace Owens has vowed to fight a defamation lawsuit filed by French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte, after the conservative Youtuber repeatedly claimed the first lady was transgender. The lawsuit, filed earlier this week in a US court, accuses Owens of spreading 'false and defamatory claims' - including that Brigitte Macron was born male, that the couple are blood relatives, and that Emmanuel Macron is a product of a CIA mind control program. According to the filing, the allegations were made 'to promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money,' and amounted to 'relentless bullying on a worldwide scale.' In a video posted to her YouTube channel on Wednesday, Owens shared a message intended for Brigitte Macron with her 4.5 million subscribers: 'You were born a man and you'll die a man,' adding that she is 'fully prepared to take on this battle on behalf of the entire world' and that she will see the French president's spouse in court. The Macrons filed a 219-page lawsuit in the US state of Delaware earlier in the day, alleging 22 counts of defamation against Owens. The complaint includes 99 pages of factual claims and evidence such as Brigitte Macron's childhood photos, birth records, and documentation of her three children with her first husband. The document says Owens has turned the couple's life 'into fodder for profit-driven lies.' Suing the podcaster was 'the last resort,' as she ignored all requests to stop her activities, Macron's lead counsel Tom Clare told CNN. Owens has repeatedly attacked Mrs. Macron on social media. In 2024, she posted a video titled 'Is France's First Lady a Man?' Earlier this year, she shared an investigation called 'Becoming Brigitte.' The rumors about Brigitte date back to 2021, when Amandine Roy and Natacha Rey posted a four-hour video alleging she was born a man. However, this July, the Paris Appeals Court overturned the fines put on the bloggers following Mrs. Macron's 2022 lawsuit. The court ruled out the women acted in 'good faith' and that their allegations were an expression of belief.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ivan Timofeev: We're close to the war nobody wants but everyone's preparing for
US President Donald Trump's recent push for peace in Ukraine highlights a troubling reality: the options for resolving the conflict are narrowing. Kiev continues to rely on NATO military support, while member states are ramping up defense spending and bolstering their arms industries. The Ukraine war may yet spark a broader confrontation between Russia and NATO. For now, the chances remain low – thanks, in large part, to nuclear deterrence. But how strong is that deterrent today? It's difficult to gauge the role of nuclear weapons in modern warfare. Their only combat use – the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 – occurred under vastly different political and technological conditions. Nonetheless, most international relations experts agree that nuclear weapons serve as powerful deterrents. Even a small nuclear arsenal is seen as a shield against invasion: the cost of aggression becomes unthinkable. By this logic, Russia, as a nuclear superpower, should be nearly immune to external military threats. The use of nuclear weapons has become a political and moral taboo – though military planners still quietly game out scenarios. The dominant belief holds that nuclear weapons are unusable – and that no rational actor would challenge a nuclear-armed state. But is that belief grounded in reality? For Russia, this is becoming an increasingly urgent question as the risk of direct confrontation with NATO – or individual NATO members – grows, especially in the context of Ukraine. There are political flashpoints aplenty. Both Russia and NATO have made their grievances known. Whether these tensions erupt into conflict will depend not just on intent, but on military-industrial capacity and force readiness. And these are changing fast. Russia has expanded defense production since 2022. NATO countries, too, are rearming – and their collective industrial base may soon surpass Russia's conventional strength. With that shift could come a more assertive posture – military pressure backed by material power. Several pathways could lead to a NATO–Russia war. One scenario involves direct NATO intervention in Ukraine. Another could stem from a crisis in the Baltics or elsewhere along NATO's eastern flank. Such crises can escalate rapidly. Drone strikes, missile attacks, and cross-border incursions are now routine. In time, NATO regulars – not just volunteers – could be drawn in. Could nuclear deterrence stop that? At first glance, yes. In a direct clash, Russia would likely begin with conventional strikes. But the war in Ukraine has shown that conventional weapons, even when effective, rarely force capitulation. NATO possesses Ukraine's defensive tools – but at greater scale. Its societies are less prepared to endure casualties, but that could change with sufficient political mobilization and media messaging. Russia has amassed significant military experience – especially in defensive operations – but NATO remains a formidable opponent. If Russia ever considered using nuclear weapons, two broad scenarios exist. The first is a preemptive tactical strike on enemy troop concentrations or infrastructure. The second is a retaliatory strike following NATO escalation. The first is politically perilous: it would frame Russia as the aggressor and trigger diplomatic isolation. The second also violates the nuclear taboo but might be seen differently in global opinion. Either way, NATO can retaliate – with conventional or nuclear force. A Russian strike could provoke a devastating counterattack. Moscow would then face a grim choice: fight on conventionally and risk defeat, escalate with more nukes, or unleash strategic weapons – inviting mutual destruction. The belief that Russia would never go nuclear – fearing retaliation – has created a false sense of security among some NATO leaders. That illusion could tempt escalation by conventional means, starting in Ukraine and spreading beyond. It would require NATO to abandon its Cold War caution. Who would suffer most in such a scenario? Ukraine – which would bear the brunt of intensified fighting. Russia – which could face missile barrages and a possible ground invasion. The Eastern NATO states – potential targets of Russian retaliation, or even invasion. The United States might escape the initial consequences, unless strategic nukes are deployed. But escalation is rarely predictable. If tactical exchanges spiral, even the US could be drawn into a nuclear conflict. There are no winners in nuclear war. Only survivors – if that. Betting that the other side will blink is a dangerous gamble with civilization at stake. Both Russia and NATO understand the catastrophic costs of war. Any large-scale conflict would require massive social and economic shifts and would devastate Europe on a scale not seen since World War II. But history shows that fear alone doesn't always prevent disaster. We cannot rule out a return to extremes. Nuclear weapons still function as a deterrent. But the taboo against their use – and their ability to guarantee peace – is being tested once again. The more leaders gamble with assumptions, the closer we come to finding out whether the old rules still hold.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Kremlin accuses Ukraine of ‘putting cart before horse'
Ukraine's calls for a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky are premature, as the two sides have yet to make progress on major points of disagreement, the Kremlin said on Thursday following the latest round of peace talks. The negotiations, held in Istanbul the day before, lasted less than an hour. Both sides agreed on several humanitarian issues, including the exchange of prisoners of war, civilian detainees, and the repatriation of soldiers' remains. Russia has also proposed short-term ceasefires lasting 24 to 48 hours to facilitate the evacuation of wounded personnel and the recovery of bodies. In addition, Moscow has suggested the creation of three online working groups focused on political, humanitarian, and military issues. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that while 'no breakthrough was expected,' the humanitarian agreements reached during the meeting were a positive step. He described the continuation of such exchanges as 'an extremely important humanitarian aspect which should be on the agenda.' He added that Russia had presented a 'constructive, concrete' agenda that was 'aimed specifically at substantive work that can lead to the achievement of concrete results.' However, Peskov criticized Kiev's calls for an immediate summit between Putin and Zelensky, arguing that such a meeting should only happen after meaningful progress has been achieved at the working level. 'They are trying to put the cart before the horse. Work needs to be done, and only then can the heads of state be given the opportunity to record the achievements that have been made,' he said. The Kremlin spokesman also referred to the conclusion by Russia's lead negotiator, Vladimir Medinsky, that the two sides continue to hold 'diametrically opposed' positions on key issues, as reflected in the draft memoranda they exchanged earlier in the negotiation process. Despite the stalemate on broader political questions, Moscow has expressed hope that a fourth round of talks could take place in the future.
