Russia seems to have entered a frenzied rage in response to the 'Soviet Occupation' decree of Interim President Mihai Ghimpu.
The first to respond was Foreign Minister Lavrov. He described the decree as 'sacriligious' and accused Ghimpu of 'pseudo-historic interpretations' and of trying to 'rewrite the common history of our two nations'. He believes that Ghimpu is trying to 'break existing stability mechanisms on the Dniester river'
'Sacrilege' is the 'violation of a sacred object'. What is the sacred object that Ghimpu has violated? Is it the belief that Russia liberated Moldova from Romanian fascists? If so, then it needs to be violated because it is not the truth, just as Galileo violated the sacred belief that the sun rotates about the earth.
As for 'rewriting common history', I think that the key word here is 'common'. Moldova was never a party to the 'victor's history' as written by the Soviets. There is no common history to rewrite. There is just the truth that needs to be told.
Regarding the 'stability mechanisms on the Dniester' Lavrov is well aware that the main source of instability in the region is the Russian forces illegally dislocated in the region and the military threat they pose to Moldova. Such 'stability mechanisms' need to be broken.
The State Duma
The Duma also lost the plot and produced an angry, emotional statement. As well as the terminology used above by Lavrov, they managed to produce a few pearls of their own. Moldova, apparently, is a 'source of regional instability which could lead to the abandonment of democratic principles and a return to neo-fascism'. The Duma also suggested that Ghimpu's decree would 'strike a blow at the possibility of settling the Transnistrian conflict'.
I suspect the 'instability' comment is a reflection of Moldova's return to democracy. Russians generally don't get democracy and equate it with weak unstable government. The idea of power changing hands peacefully is incomprehensible to most of them.
The 'neo-fascism' comment is a cheap shot which bears little relationship with reality, but is designed to ring bells in the minds of listeners.
As for endangering the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict, I would suggest the opposite. Moldova's position is now crystal clear and that has to be a good thing.
I note that neither Lavrov's statement nor the Duma's contain any logical arguments against the content of the decree. Indeed it appears that they may not even have fully read the decree nor attempted to understand it. Russia has instead responded on instinct, assuming that Ghimpu is another Saakasvili or Yusenko who is standing in the way of their imperial ambitions and needs to be brought down a peg or two.
The Liberal Party this morning issued a statement condemning the tone of the Duma's declaration. Other Moldovan political parties, even those on the left, together with the EU and the US should support the statement. No matter what they think of the content of the decree, they should rally around and defend the office and the dignity of the President of Moldova. They should support Moldova's sovereignty and territorial integrity and send a clear message to Moscow that it has no business interfering in Moldova's internal affairs.