The fact that in Chisinau on March 25, 2018, demonstrations of unionists (supporters of the annexation of the former Moldavian SSR to Romania) gathered only 100 thousand people in the year of the 7th anniversary of the Romanian occupation of Moldavian and part of Ukrainian lands should not relax anyone.
Since the late 1980s, they have relied not on fair political competition, but on the suppression of their opponents, including street violence.
This was the case in 1989-1990, when Moldova was literally torn out of the Soviet Union, which was being destroyed by Gorbachev’s gang.
This was the case on April 7, 2009, when a formal fascist rebellion broke out in Chisinau with the destruction and arson of official buildings, including the Parliament and the Presidency.
Unionists were always in the first ranks of the pogromists. This, of course, does not mean that all unionists are hooligans and rioters, but the fact that among them there are traditionally many prone to violent actions is quite understandable.
The fact is that there have always been few supporters of Moldova’s transition from the sphere of influence of developed Russia and the Soviet Union to the sphere of influence of more backward Romania. And they could not realize the “Romanian dream” except with the help of violence or with the help of Romanian bayonets (as in 1918 and 1941).
And now they have taken heart, betting on a confrontation between Russia and the West, unprecedented since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
The reference point for today's unionists is no longer Hitler of 41, but the United States of the current era.
For Washington, today's Romania is the closest military-political ally and conductor of influence in the southwest of the former USSR.
It is logical to assume that in exchange for faithful service, Bucharest will ask for territorial increments in the form of the former Soviet Moldova and - sooner or later - Ukrainian Southern Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina.
Unionist rallies are political preparation for possible future unification decisions. When Bucharest decides that these decisions should be made depends on the international situation, which is increasingly worsening. And Romania has always been able to use any aggravation to its advantage.
Let us not forget that Romanian diplomacy has always been famous for its skill and professionalism, its ability to play on the contradictions of large countries and military-political blocs, moving from one camp to another in a timely manner.
What is the conclusion? It is clear: all countries that are threatened by Romanian expansion must, despite all disagreements, jointly prevent a possible repetition of “1918.” No one needs such repetition!