Here we go again. Yet another little country trying to score points with the West by revising history. They may be able to distract their own population from internal problems, but if they are hoping for handouts from Europe and the US, they are too late - that ship has sailed. By the way, Moldavia was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years before Soviet Union even existed. Soviet invasion of Bessarabia in 1940? What are they on about? The word "Bessarabia" is a Russian word, not moldavian and it means "land free of Arabs". The name was given during Katherine the Great times,when Russians had freed southern parts of what is now Moldavia, together with it's then grateful population, (as well as the Black sea area and the southern steppes of what is now a part of Ukraine, and later, also Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia) from the long standing Ottoman occupation. Of course the real history is conveniently forgotten when greed, anger and political expediency take over. Well, this "government" of Moldova, like the previous one in Ukraine, won't last long. I give them 6 months before they start fighting among themselves for power. And Transdnistrians would be really foolish to agree on anything with them - they can't be trusted.

Larisa, Well said, apreciate your effort on three good paragraphs, are any of us others going to spend more than a few lines of text on this - Yawn!!!!!!! - Now lets get back to business and the real world! Thanks again Larisa, the train has well gone on this one!

"By the way, Moldavia was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years before Soviet Union even existed." Larisa, wake up!!! Read some history books. Bessarabia was not a part of Russian Empire for HUNDREDS of years. After the war with the Turks, when Romania gain it's interdependency, Russia occupied Bessarabia in 1812. Historically this peace of land was leaved by the Romanians (majority). So, YES it's true that first the Russian Empire occupied Moldova in 1812 and than Soviet, first time in 1940 and second time in 1944. I do respect the Russian nation, but the truth has to be said. I know that Russia doesn't like it. But that's the truth and it has to be said even from the little Moldova. PS. If you don't have access to history books check Wikipedia because you are wrong about the name of Bessarbai as well.

Ion, First, I am a linguist and specialize in history of languages, I have access to true scintific data in this regard and I am absolutely right about the history of the word "bessarabia." It means specifically, "land free of arabs" in Russian. Second, Wikipedia is a terrible source to verify anything, it has plenty of pseudo, unverified information on it, most of the time tailored to the agenda of some group or other. In this case, I suspect, Moldavian/Romanian nationalists. As it is, currently there too many pseudo sources out there that will insist that black is white and vice versa to suit their agenda.

My knowledge of Moldova is not great enough to permit me to authoritatively comment on its circumstances, and I hope that Larissa’s is. Else her comments would reflect only strongly held but factually unsupportable bias. But what I do know in some detail and depth is the history of Russia’s Baltic neighbours, and this knowledge (which is verifiable from and consistent with any relevant authoritative historical source worldwide) demonstrates Russia’s Soviet era pretentions about the Baltics and post-Soviet Russia’s continued embrace of these, to be the sheerest nonsense. As it is the same Russia reacting the same way to Moldova as to the Baltics, and the same Russia apologists shouting the same slogans from the sidelines, my initial reaction is one of natural sympathy with Moldova and a natural expectation of Russian bunkum in the wind.

Wikipedia or linguist specialist's sources, but former Bassarabia WAS part of the Great Romania, which at its turn traces back to the Dacia Empire that later was concurred by the Roman Empire. And in all sources the two territories were as one. Currently in Romania there still exists a region, the North Eastern part called Moldova, and that is exactly the bordering territory with the current Republic of Moldova. The fact that it was one nation is reflected in similar language, traditions, art etc. Language - Romanian dialect, just as the one spoken in the Moldova region of Romania, with a Russian influence, since the occupation. As for the news itself that we are commenting, it is not that big a deal should it have happened just after elections. It is only true what was stated, after the Soviet occupation, there came truly disastrous times and starvation for the population of current Republic of Moldova. However the timing to address this issue is wrong as it is nothing but a "present" for the Communist Party for the coming elections. "present" I say, as this deed gives more ground to the Communist Party for dispute, accusations and judging of the new governance, as there are no other stronger issues to attack for. It is true that the situation in Moldova is instable on all grounds, political, economical, etc. but this action of the interim President is definitely not a hope for handouts form the West. It is in my opinion a somewhat foolish but morally justifiable deed. p.s. "Transdnistrians" are nothing without the Russian backup and they don't really decide on what to agree and what not. They only managed to self proclaimed independent (1992) due to the Russian army. And the truth is that Republic of Moldova does not really need them, its a burden in all aspects, it is just too scandalous to be said out loud, officially, by any politician.

Irisha, in 1917 after Russian Empire collapsed Moldovan government joined Romania under conditions that Romania would give it autonomy and reform. Romania did not even attempt to do any of these things. No wonder Moldova welcomed Russian Army with flowers. Moldova was never part of the Roman Empire. As a matter of fact Moldovan territory was populated by Free Dacians who were not conquered by the Roman Empire. Moldova was independent 1300's-1800's although it paid the Ottoman Empire for protection. In 19th century Romania changed its language. It took out half of Slavic (old russian) words and replaced them with Latin and French ones.... This was known as the Latin reform at the time. Old Romanian was closer to Russian then Moldavian language is now. This is why the people in Moldova have a "Russian" dialect, the truth is Romanian was also written in the Russian Alphabet before this Reform!! The people in Moldova speak more closer to the Real Old Romanian language. Many Words remain.. here is example In Romania you still see the countryside people say "Harbuz" like the Russian "Arbuz" but the people in the Towns and Cities will say "pepene verde" because of how Romania changed its language people in the Cities adapted to it first. Moldova wants Transnistria, Transnistria does not want Moldova. An Independent Moldova was never with Transnistria. I just felt the need to educate you, Feel free to ask question

Vova, Feel free to fulfill your need. I never said Moldova was part of the Roman Empire, but Dacia Empire, which at it's turn entirely or not, was later concurred and divided, also my point was not to go in details about the provenience of The Republic of Moldova nor to explain how the language was formed. Instead I wanted to express my opinion on the news and how it is not that big a deal or totally insane of Mr. Ghimpu (compared to many other statements he gave) to do what he did. Also i tried to imply that it is all political games rather then real concern of a strong nationalists. And finally, I stay strong on my opinion about Transnistria. You most probably right when saying that Transnistria does not want Moldova, and here we share same opinion, but only because they have Russia standing behind them and for no other reason. I dont think you believe in their independent success in separating form Moldova, forming their own government, and starting up one independent economy while not being recognized as an independent country. And just to make it clear, I am not debating who wants who, but rather emphasizing that this topic of Transnistria is taboo for politicians.. Even if it crosses their minds to discuss a reasonable possibility to give up that territory, can they really say it out loud without being accused and regarded as national traitors...? I am sure now i gave you even more grounds to educate :)

Dear Vova KGB did a good job with you. Your logic is like this: in the XIXth century ALL the Romanians stopped speaking a Russian language and learn all of them a new Romanian language with more Latin and French words. What will happen next? All the Romanians will learn Chinese and will become part of the Han family? KGB agrees with this theory? Tell them , maybe you'll get a promotion. This aberration can be accepted only by some propagandist apparatchiks. How do you visualize the process? Exams to test the new knowledge?:) The shepherds failed at first at the exams and pass after? It was a reform like in all the languages but not as you call it. You cannot resist as an empire with this type of logic, my friend. Soon the nations that are occupied by your people will be liberated: Caucasus, Siberia, you'll see. What YOUR history say about them?? They were Russians and after a while they learn another language because USA paid them? Violence does not always is victorious especially when the intelligence behind it is of this kind. I still laugh thinking about your way of seeing the world around you. Anyway: good luck inn life: you'll needed.

Facts: Romanian and Moldavan are the same language. There is no point in trying to debate this because it is an observable fact. I am not ethnically Romanian, I learnt Romanian as an adult and despite this I can easily understand the language spoken by people in Chisinau. In fact, I would submit that the two dialects are closer to one another than one might observe between American and British English. Whilst it is true that Romanian went through a process of "re-Latinization" in the 1800s, it is extremely ignorant and foolish to state that the language resembled Russian prior to this. Certain Slavic worlds that had previously been adopted fell into disuse, but the change was largely superficial. In fact, Romanian is one of the best preserved languages in Europe today. Any contemporary Romanian can read texts that are hundreds of years old without much trouble. I recently read Neacsu's Letter (the oldest surviving Romanian text) and I could understand it perfectly. The illusion of "Slavonic Romanian" stems from the fact that the language was originally written in cyrillic script and also due to the fact that old church Slavonic became an important language due the the spread of orthodoxy throughout the country. The Old Moldavian Kingdom encompassed Romanian Moldavia and today's Republic of Moldova as well as some territories that currently form part of the Ukraine. The Moldavian Kingdom and Wallachia eventually fell to the Ottoman Empire and were subject to its rule for approximately 400 years, under a state of suzerainty. In the early 1800s Imperial Russia came into conflict with the Turks over South Eastern Europe. It was an imperial turf war which was won by Russia. The Romanian principalities fought alongside Russia as allies and made an important contribution in helping the Russian Empire.