Moldova – between memory and the future
Moldova is a country many of us associate only with wine. Yet today it stands on the threshold of profound change — social, cultural, and touristic.
More and more often, people travel there out of curiosity, seeking authenticity, quiet, and landscapes untouched by mass tourism, but we still know surprisingly little about it. That is why, before the discussion “Moldova – between memory and the future,” we presented three short films produced by the Mieroszewski Centre as part of the “Moldova. Renewal” project:
- “Romashka” – about a 22-story tower block in Chișinău that became a symbol of collapse and transformation.
- “Natalia Gârbu – the photographer” – a story about everyday life, memory, and sensitivity captured in mosaics and photographs.
- “The Mammoth” – about a dream to revive a village around an ancient fossil and give it new meaning.
Each film explored the relationship between space, history, and identity — and these themes became the starting point for the discussion that followed.
How can we speak about a country that is still searching for its own language to describe its history and future? During the meeting, the speakers — Prof. Zinaida Bolea, analyst Kamil Całus, and moderator Justyna Prus — examined the dynamics of change taking place in Moldova today. The discussion revolved around issues present in both the films and in the everyday life of the country: collective memory, identity, language, architecture, and the challenges facing Moldovan society during its transformation.
Memory that divides — and continues to live
The discussion began with the question of how history is spoken about in Moldova today. Prof. Bolea stressed that the past remains “a sensitive issue,” and interpretations often depend on political and cultural sympathies. As she noted, “half of society looks at the past through a Russian lens, and half through a European one” — a division visible both during elections and in everyday conversations.
Moldovan identity — still in the making
Kamil Całus referred to the provocative title of his book “Moldova. A nonessential state,” explaining that it does not imply that Moldovan identity is nonexistent, but rather that for decades the country was not treated as a subject by either the West or the East. “This is not an unnecessary country — it is a country that for years has not been treated as necessary,” he explained.
In his view, however, recent years have brought a clear shift: an accelerating “derussification” of society, especially after 2022.
“Fifteen years ago, Moldova was a country split in half between the West and Russia. Today that division is disappearing,” he noted.
He added that the younger generation speaks Russian less and less, labour migration to Russia has nearly stopped, and Russia is losing its significance as a cultural point of reference.
Language — a field of conflict and a space of change
One of the most emotional topics of the discussion was the issue of language. Bolea reminded that during the Soviet era, Romanian was devalued and treated as a second-class language.
“In the Soviet Union, Romanian was treated as a second-rate language. Whoever controls the language controls everything,” she said.
Całus observed that today there is growing “healthy frustration” among Moldovans toward those Russian-speaking residents who have refused to learn Romanian for decades: “People now say: you’ve lived here for over 30 years — it’s time to learn Romanian.”
Meanwhile, the government has launched free Romanian-language courses for minorities — demand exceeds available spots many times over.
Minorities and ‘Sovietness’ as a refuge
Another important subject concerned national minorities — Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Polish, Gagauz and others. As Bolea noted, many of them had “nowhere to return to” after 1991 and remained anchored in a Soviet identity that provided a sense of belonging.
Całus argued that integrating minorities into a European Moldova requires restoring their cultural roots first: “We need to reclaim these minorities from Russia. Rebuild their national identities, and only then integrate them into the Moldovan project.”
According to him, renationalisation — for example, strengthening the Gagauz language with support from Turkey — could become a key tool for social cohesion.
Architecture as memory and testimony
The conversation naturally moved toward architecture — a major theme in the films. The 1980s tower block featured in “Romashka” became a symbol of how the urban landscape preserves traces of communism.
As Prof. Bolea noted: “It’s a good metaphor for communism — a beautiful concept from afar, but an uncomfortable, empty space inside.”
Całus expanded this reflection with the story of the Hotel National — once a modernist showcase of Chișinău, later a ruin inhabited by street children: “This building shows what happened to Moldovan society after mass emigration and the collapse of the system.”
Both speakers agreed that decisions about what to preserve, demolish, or replace in post-Soviet architecture are deeply political, costly, and emotionally charged.
Diaspora, politics, and the future of Transnistria
Questions from the audience highlighted further key issues: the role of the Moldovan diaspora, the influence of oligarch Vlad Plahotniuc, and the prospects for resolving the Transnistrian conflict.
Całus reminded participants: “Without the votes of the Moldovan diaspora, the pro-European PAS party would never have won the elections.”
He described Transnistria as “a frozen issue rather than a priority”, noting that any resolution would require significant financial resources and favourable geopolitical conditions.
A new narrative for Moldova
Summing up the discussion, Justyna Prus stressed that Moldova is currently undergoing an intense process of re-evaluating its past: “Renewal does not mean returning to the past. It is an attempt to understand it — and move forward.”
The event showed that Moldova — a small and often overlooked country — is a place where some of Europe’s most pressing issues converge: memory, history, identity, migration, and modernisation.
Discussion guests:
Zinaida Bolea – Professor at Moldova State University, social psychologist, researcher of historical memory and the trauma of deportations.
Kamil Całus – Analyst at the Centre for Eastern Studies (OSW), author of several books, including “Moldova. A Nonessential State” (Czarne Publishing House).
The discussion was moderated by Justyna Prus, Head of the Foreign Desk at the Polish Press Agency (PAP), who has been reporting on developments in post-Soviet countries for many years.
The meeting was part of the HumanDOC Festival, dedicated to documentary films and social stories from around the world.
