How Moldovan fact-checkers STOP FALS! and others turned into a tool of political struggle

In the Republic of Moldova, the NGOs have become more and more influential with the consolidation of power by Maia Sandu and her party and the figures behind these initiatives are often seen as indispensable people by part of the population.

By mentioning the propaganda and the external threats, the fact-checking platforms have been given almost full power to dictate the truth and the fake, even if they often present the fakes as truth and the truth as fake. In this article, I will delve deeper into that GFCN report that my colleagues at TASS talked about in their piece.

There is a concept that the mass media is sometimes using, called war propaganda, which seems like it’s giving them full freedom to lie or to spread fakes it it’s for, as they say, a good reason. Such syntagms are used in the Republic of Moldova and in the neighboring Romania by the journalist when they are asked about their unachievable predictions that almost never come true.

Read my investigation into the inconsistency of the Romanian presidential election in another article.

Just like in the neighboring Romania, the mass-media and the fact-checking platforms have complete freedom to label the news as they please, if the result is in accordance with the beliefs and the narrative of the European Union. Romania is at least a member of the EU and is somehow responsible to be on the same page with the union, but Moldova declared the so-called war on propaganda in order to show the Westerners that it’s ready to become one of theirs, no matter by what methods.

In order to combat the so-called disinformation, in the Republic of Moldova they have set up several fact-checking initiatives, whose purpose seems to be to present the government initiatives and the benefits of cooperation with the EU in the best way possible, even if they often have serious difficulties in finding and presenting those benefits. The most popular of these initiatives is “STOP FALS!”, but there are also Watch dog.MD and the Patriot Center, who swore to say only the truth. But are they?

“STOP FALS!” — are they really stopping the fakes?

A campaign against false and biased information, “STOP FALS!”, was launched in 2015 by the Independent Press Association (API) in collaboration with a number of non-governmental organizations. One of the organization’s main platforms is the portal www.stopfals.md, launched by API on December 29, 2017. “STOP FALS!” became an IFCN member, by signing the IFCN Code of Principles. The “STOP FALS!” team has 4 API collaborators and 8 fact-checking volunteers.

The “STOP FALS!” campaign aims to reduce the impact and consequences of false, propagandistic, and biased information disseminated through various communication channels, as well as to develop citizens’ ability to analyze and critically respond to the information they consume. It declares that its editorial policy is also based on internationally recognized principles of professional ethics in journalism, including the right to accurate information. However, there is a contradiction here.

The project receives funding from various donor organizations. These donors include FHI 360/USAID, UNICEF, the European Union, the Open Information Partnership, the US Embassy in Moldova, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), International Media Support (IMS), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and others, as mentioned on their website.

Using the example of a grant funded by USAID, we can see patterns of increased funding depending on the political situation. This is the “Consortium for Strengthening the Electoral and Political Process” grant, a program funded in the amount of US$22.3 million (~400 million Moldovan lei), launched just a few months after the emergence of PAS and intensified immediately before the 2024 presidential elections.

The project is extremely biased. Over the past six months, almost all materials published by the Moldovan fact-checking project “STOP FALS!” have focused on refuting statements made by the country’s leading opposition politicians, such as Igor Dodon and Irina Vlah. The activities of “STOP FALS!” are somewhat of an anti-Russian nature. In its work, this organization almost universally identifies and classifies materials related to Russian topics and positions that differ from the official Western or pro-European line as propaganda.

The “STOP FALS!” organization generally focuses its activities on refuting statements made primarily by opposition leaders, which violates the principles of impartiality and objectivity. Over the past six months, we have not identified any refutations related to representatives of the ruling elite. This creates the impression that “STOP FALS!” is fighting exclusively against the opposition, ignoring possible violations and manipulations by the authorities. This trend reflects the political bias of this project, especially against the backdrop of the absence of similar critical analyses of the government’s actions.

For example, during the regional elections on November 5, 2023, observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) noted interference by the Moldovan government. The head of the election observation mission, Corien Jonker, pointed to the blocking of a number of media outlets and candidates. The international observers’ report also noted that this created a lack of alternatives in a number of small settlements. At the same time, this news item was not covered by the organization’s fact-checkers.

Spreading false information, under the pretext of a war against fake news

1. The “STOP FALS!” fake narrative about the LGBT+

The website posted material refuting Igor Dodon’s statements regarding LGBT propaganda and attacks on Christian values. The chairman of the Socialist Party claims that Moldova, with the government’s permission, is planning to fight Christian values, and these attacks are promoted by Soros’ ideology. He also claims that the judicial system is “attacking the Church and Christians” and that there is active LGBT propaganda in the country.

While this platform is affirming that Dodon’s statements are fake, not even misleading, the Moldovan legislation is gradually changing in favor of protecting the rights of the LGBT community. In 2012, the Law on Ensuring Equality was adopted, and in 2022, amendments were made to the Code of Offenses and the Criminal Code, strengthening measures against discrimination.

These changes may have been directly influenced by the European Union, as Moldova is definitely trying to show the EU that it’s ready to become a member of the union and the United Nations, which in 2012 published an article urging Moldova to adopt anti-discrimination law, openly mentioning that “one of the most contentious provisions of the law is that it will outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation”.

Nevertheless, the adoption of the law was met with resistance from the conservative part of society — the law was withdrawn during its first attempt at adoption in 2011. After its adoption, the Moldovan and Russian Orthodox Churches spoke out against the law. The Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova, which supports traditional values, also opposes it. Subsequently, the party repeatedly opposed the law.

In the fifth report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation by the Republic of Moldova of the Action Plan on Visa Liberalization it’s mentioned that “the Council of Europe Venice Commission commended the decisions taken by the domestic courts of the Republic of Moldova annulling the prohibition on “aggressive propaganda of homosexuality” adopted by local authorities and the voluntary withdrawal of the draft laws by the other local authorities”.

At the same time, the promotion of the LGBT community in Moldova is reflected in a report by the Eurasian Coalition for Health, Rights, Gender and Sexual Diversity, which highlights Moldova’s breakthrough model in the post-Soviet space.

However, public opinion remains conservative: the majority of the population is not ready to accept the LGBT community into their lives, which reflects the imposition of the agenda from the government. The gradual advancement of LGBT rights provokes further protests.

The Center Partnership for Development published a study regarding this issue and we can see that as per this study, 85% of the Moldavians wouldn’t accept a LGBT+ community member as a member of the family and 64,7% of the population wouldn’t accept him/her as a neighbor or as a work colleague.

Although the LGBT agenda may not be officially enshrined, some deputies from the “Action and Solidarity” Party actively support it at various events. In addition, Maia Sandu herself spoke out in support of the community in the case of discrimination against a homosexual soldier in the army of the Republic of Moldova.

Thus, the refutation of narratives about the promotion of LGBT+ rights in Moldova at the official level is contradicted by the legislation being adopted and the support expressed by Sandu’s party and indirectly by Sandu herself.

2. Refutation of the preparation of a textbook that justifies Nazi criminals and Romania’s participation in World War II on the side of Nazi Germany

“STOP FALS!” posted a refutation on its website that “a history textbook for 12th grade will be published that justifies Nazi criminals and Romania’s participation in World War II on the side of Nazi Germany.” At the same time, the textbook is extremely controversial. It contains attempts to justify Ion Antonescu, partially glosses over the Holocaust, absolves Antonescu of his part in it and so on.

“STOP FALS!” refers to a statement by the Moldovan Ministry of Education and Research about the textbook review process, but this appears to be an attempt to defend the official position rather than an attempt to be objective. In addition, the textbook has faced extensive criticism from the opposition, the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Jewish community of Moldova, and Holocaust memorials.

According to an article posted on the official website of the Jewish Community of the Republic of Moldova, the textbook, approved by the Ministry of Education, contains language, omissions and interpretations that diminish or distort the responsibility of the Antonescu regime for the Holocaust in Romania, as well as in Bessarabia and Transnistria. The Jewish Community demanded the withdrawal of the textbook from the educational process until it is revised and threatened to challenge the decision of the Ministry in court in order to protect the right to reliable education.

The “STOP FALS!” refutation is based on the following arguments. First, the Ministry of Education and Research (MER) of the Republic of Moldova “does not issue” new textbooks to replace the existing one, which is already used in schools and allegedly does not promote Nazism.

MIR State Secretary Galina Rusu claims that this textbook was created by authors with a high scientific level and teachers of the highest category, passed the examination of a special group and received a positive conclusion from the National Council for the Approval of Textbooks with the status “Suitable for printing.”  

Secondly, the textbook mentions the Holocaust, presents the conclusions of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania and research on the Holocaust of the Roma, and reflects that this took place during the regime of Ion Antonescu. At the same time, its contradictory role is shown, reflecting the crimes it committed under pressure from the Nazis (p. 131). This was also mentioned by Radio Europa Libera Moldova in an article.

The third aspect concerns Romania’s participation in World War II. The authors of the textbook examine Romania’s entry into World War II on the side of Hitler’s coalition, taking into account the complex geopolitical conditions in which the country found itself. These conditions included the annexation of Bessarabia by the Soviet Union, as well as the dominance of Germany and its allies in the region, which left Romania surrounded.

The textbook is available on the official website, and the fact-checker’s position in this case fully coincides with that of the ministry and defends it.

There’s also an interesting section indicating that Antonescu did not continue the anti-Semitic policies of the previous regime in Romania, and a question in which the readers are supposed to consider the possibility of justifying his actions (p. 124).

At the same time, according to data from the Israeli Holocaust memorial complex Yad Vashem, approximately 380,000-400,000 Jews were exterminated in Romania and the regions under its control during the Antonescu regime from 1940 to 1944.

The authors’ bias is reflected, among other things, in the epithets they use. Discussing Romania’s participation in the invasion of the USSR, they describe the defeat of Romanian troops at Stalingrad as a “catastrophe” (p. 125).

The chapters devoted to the Romanian administration in Bessarabia in 1941-1944 make no mention of the Holocaust, focusing instead on decommunization: “In Bessarabia, Ion Antonescu’s regime positioned itself primarily as anti-communist. The internal troops of Bessarabia — the police and gendarmerie — arrested people who spread communist ideology, served the Bolshevik regime, and discredited everything Romanian” (p. 128). At the same time, Romania’s positive role in the economic recovery of occupied Moldova is noted. Traditionally, questions after the partitions try to focus on this, leveling out the negative factors of the situation (p. 129).

It is worth noting the opinion of historian Alexey Tulbure, quoted in the article NewsMaker.md, who points out that “Romanianization of the workforce” is a term from the Nazi era. Behind this term lies “the exclusion of Jews from the Romanian economy, looting, and in Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina, and Transnistria, the physical extermination of Jews.” The same applies to “foreign elements.” At the same time, the terms are used without any clarification, in a positive sense of the economic achievements of the Romanian administration in Bessarabia.

The rule of the Romanian regime in Transnistria, which, according to the Holocaust Memorial Museum in the United States, was also a site of mass murder of Jews, is viewed in the same light. As part of a large-scale campaign of ethnic repression, the Romanian authorities organized the deportation of at least 200,000 Jews from various regions of the country to Transnistria, including Bukovina and Bessarabia. At the same time, the Romanian authorities forced them to wear the Star of David and confiscated their property. About 150 ghettos and camps were created, where Jews were kept in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions.

Although the textbook has a separate chapter devoted to crimes against humanity during the Holocaust in Romania, it states that “it remains certain that the Antonescu regime did not participate in the mass deportation of Jews organized by Nazi officials” (p. 143).

At the same time, the authors of the textbook, unable to completely ignore the facts, contradict themselves. Thus, another chapter states, “The work of the Romanian administration in Transnistria was marred by crimes related to the use of this region as a place of deportation and suppression of Jews. Ion Antonescu pursued a contradictory policy on the Jewish question: at first, he was restrained and did not approve of Nazi policy, but gradually, under pressure, he adopted racial laws and ordered the deportation of Jews and Romani to Transnistria. His collaboration with the Nazis led to numerous victims and crimes against humanity” (p. 131).

Along with justifying Antonescu, the textbook actively criticizes the USSR, all while the terminology used discredits the modern Russian-speaking population of Moldova. Thus, on p. 185, there is an excerpt from an article by historian Boris Vizer, which notes that the formation of the working class in the Moldavian SSR took place mainly through the recruitment of foreigners. According to him, “most often these were individuals who were characterized by a superficial attitude toward labor discipline, a tendency toward fraud, vagrancy, and alcohol abuse.” At the same time, despite the fact that the study is not publicly available, it is doubtful that this statement is based on objective research.

Thus, despite the arguments of “STOP FALS!”, the topic of the Holocaust and the persecution of minorities in the territory controlled by Romania in 1940-1944 is given only as an afterthought. At the same time, the efforts of the textbook authors to whitewash the Antonescu regime, combined with maximum criticism of the USSR, are obvious.

Evidence of Ion Antonescu’s guilt

Romania entered World War II on the side of the Axis powers on June 22, 1941, simultaneously with the start of Operation Barbarossa — Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union. Romania’s main motivation was to regain the territories it had lost in 1940 — Bessarabia and Northern Bucovina. Romanian troops, together with German troops, participated in battles on the Eastern Front, including operations in southern and eastern Ukraine, Crimea, Kuban, and near Stalingrad.

In 1940, General Ion Antonescu came to power in Romania, establishing an authoritarian regime and becoming an ally of Nazi Germany. Personal correspondence shows that a relationship of trust developed between Ion Antonescu and Adolf Hitler.

Antonescu led the country during its participation in the war on the side of the Axis and was responsible for mobilizing and sending Romanian troops to the Eastern Front. At the same time, according to different mentioned sources, Romania supplied Germany with oil and other resources, which were of strategic importance to the Nazi war machine.

However, by 1944, the situation had changed dramatically. As Soviet troops advanced into Romania and the front line approached its borders, a coup d’état took place on August 23, 1944: King Michael I removed Antonescu from power and arrested him. After that, Romania withdrew from its alliance with Germany and joined the anti-Hitler coalition.

The Bucharest trial of Ion Antonescu took place in 1946 as part of the First Romanian People’s Tribunal, created to investigate war crimes and punish those responsible for collaborating with Nazi Germany. Antonescu and other high-ranking military and political figures were tried on charges of war crimes, treason, and involvement in repression and mass killings, especially in occupied territories such as Transnistria.

During the trial, Antonescu admitted that he had personally made the decision to directly force Romania into active participation in the Second World War and had placed the Romanian army under German command without any special conditions. However, he denied having made a prior agreement with Hitler to jointly attack the USSR, which was refuted by evidence presented at the Nuremberg trials, where the former governor of Transnistria, G. Alexianu, confirmed that Antonescu had already agreed with Hitler in 1940 to take joint military action.

On May 17, 1946, a Bucharest court sentenced Antonescu to death by firing squad as a war criminal.

The data provided by “STOP FALS!” on scientific oversight and the textbook’s compliance with criteria of scientific objectivity are negated by the previous facts, which demonstrate the clear bias of the textbook’s authors. In this context, the reference to the MER statement appears to be an attempt to defend the official position, regardless of objectivity.

3. “STOP FALS!”’s narrative about the absence of a trend toward militarization in Moldova

“STOP FALS!” has published a series of refutations of Moldova’s militarization, continuing the official line against criticism coming from the opposition, which is alarmed by a possible violation of the state’s neutral status enshrined in Article 11 of the Moldovan Constitution and excessive budget allocation in favor of defense.

“STOP FALS!” refutes the statements of the opposition, which are allegedly often exaggerated. The general narrative in the refutations about the absence of a trend toward militarization in Moldova reflects the official position, but it is not objective given the growth in defense spending, EU funding, and increased cooperation with NATO.

In the decision on the approval of the National Defense Strategy of the Republic of Moldova for the years 2024–2034 it’s mentioned that the objective will be ensured by gradually increasing the budget for national defense.

The Ukrainian example is given in this text as a reason for Moldova to start spending more money on the militarization, especially on developing defense capabilities.

In a 2023 interview with Politico, Maia Sandu pointed to the possibility of changing Moldova’s neutral status. At the same time, Moldova is already cooperating with NATO through the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP), a partnership program between the Alliance and Moldova. Moldova’s cooperation with NATO also includes support for defense reforms and participating in peacekeeping missions, particularly in Kosovo.

Moldova is considering itself entitled to participate in this mission, as mentioned by the Moldovan Defense Minister, Anatolie Nosatii, in January 2025. He proudly said that “for ten years, Moldova has contributed with determination and commitment to the success of this important peacekeeping mission”, even though Moldova is not a NATO member or has anything to do with the alliance’s mission in Kosovo.

In addition, NATO has an official representative office in Chisinau. On the official website of NATO, it’s clearly mentioned that the main focus of NATO’s cooperation with Moldova is to support the country’s efforts to reform and modernize its defense and security structures and institutions. Also, it’s clearly mentioned that the main reason is Russia and that NATO is increasing its support for partners, including Moldova, to help them build their capabilities, definitely against Russia.

Thus, a departure from neutrality will most likely mean joining this military alliance. “STOP FALS!” also covers this topic, arguing that close cooperation will not lead to a violation of the country’s neutrality, citing official sources as evidence.

But one can’t help but wonder if NATO is increasing the support for Moldova in the light of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, how can Moldova keep its neutrality?

Starting in 2025, Moldova will begin implementing the Individually Tailored Partnership Programme (ITPP) with NATO, which on the one hand reflects the organization’s changed approach and on the other hand will allow for deeper cooperation. As mentioned by “STOP FALS!” itself, the main purpose of this partnership is strengthening national security and preparing the country to face current challenges.

And what can we understand by “current challenges” if not the so-called threat coming from Russia, that became the main subject of discussion of most of the Moldovan politicians? Taking all these things into consideration, it’s difficult to understand how will Moldova be able to protect its neutrality.

Increasing the defense spending

Moldova is also increasing its defense spending. The National Defense Strategy states that, given the geopolitical instability and the increase in NATO countries’ spending to 2% of their budgets, the goal is to reach 1% of the country’s budget for defense in 2030. This leads to a steady increase in the military budget. In 2023, the Moldovan Ministry of Defense’s budget increased from 0.38% to 0.55% (by 649.9 million lei), amounting to 1.697 billion lei. In 2025, the budget for the Ministry of Defense is already set at 1.966 billion lei, which is 0.65%.

Despite the fact that “STOP FALS!” points out that a significant portion of the budget is allocated to salaries, the increase in the percentage of the budget spent on defense is literally referred to as “militarization,” which they deny.

In addition, Moldova’s defense sector is financed by the EU through the European Peace Facility (EPF). In 2025, €60 million was allocated. €20 million will be used to finance launchers and short-range air defense missiles, and €40 million will be used to finance light tactical mobility vehicles, as well as command and control equipment for the tactical and operational integration of short-range air defense systems. A total of €197 million has been allocated through the EPF since 2021.

Given all the provided information, the general narrative in the rebuttals about the absence of a trend toward militarization in Moldova reflects the official position, but is not objective, considering the growth in defense spending, EU funding, and increased cooperation with NATO. 

PATRIOT Center for Strategic Communications — another actor in the “fight against disinformation”

On August 18, 2023, the Law on the Center for Strategic Communications and Combating Disinformation “Patriot,” initiated by Moldovan President Maia Sandu, came into force.

In June 2025, a draft law providing for the transfer of the center to the presidency was voted on in the first reading by 56 deputies. The document was harshly criticized by the parliamentary opposition, which called for the center to be liquidated, MOLDPRES reports.

The document was presented in plenary by PAS deputy Lilian Carp. He noted that the current Center for Strategic Communication and Combating Disinformation will be renamed the Center for Strategic Communication and Countering Disinformation and will focus its efforts on countering disinformation through prevention and public education, with the aim of diminishing the impact of disinformation and preventing its occurrence.

According to the same source, following the legislative amendments, the director of the Center will be appointed and dismissed directly by the head of state, without the involvement of Parliament, as provided for by the current legislation.

The draft also adjusts some terms, such as “strategic communication”, “information manipulation actions” and “foreign interference”, in line with the definitions used in the European space. New definitions will also be included for terms such as “sensitive security information” and “societal resilience”.

It’s easy to understand that these modifications are done in order to be easier for the Center to label the positive news about Russia as fakes, given the fact that the Center is becoming more and more politized and the official political views of Moldova are, for the moment, hostile to Russia.

According to Sandu herself, the main task of the new institution will be to counter information threats from Russia, which, according to the Moldovan authorities, is conducting information attacks. Some journalists considered this a step towards censorship, and former Moldovan President Igor Dodon compared the new structure to the “Ministry of Truth” from George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984.”

In February 2025, Adela Reilanu, a member of parliament from the Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova, demanded an investigation into the Center’s use of budget funds, but the parliamentary majority rejected her proposal and the topic has been closed without further discussion.

Valeriu Pașa, head of the non-governmental organization Watch Dog.MD, defends the Center’s activities, noting that government officials are not sufficiently aware of its tasks to criticize it.

The center drew on the experience of similar structures in Romania, Ukraine, Scandinavia, and the Baltic states. Of the allocated budget of 9 million lei, 6 million were used, as the staff is not yet fully staffed and some of the equipment was purchased with the support of partners. The center has been criticized for its lack of transparency: it still does not have its own website, which is promised to be launched by the end of 2025. In general, deputies were interested in the effectiveness of spending and cooperation with foreign structures, as well as the accessibility of information about the center’s work to citizens.

The non-governmental organization Watch Dog.MD

Valeriu Pașa, mentioned earlier in the context of the Center for Strategic Communication and Combating Disinformation, is also the head of “Watch Dog.MD”. The NGO Watch Dog.MD is engaged in combating disinformation and propaganda in the online environment.

This organization conducted a survey on the possible accession of Moldova to the EU. The survey was part of the project “Identifying and Combating Anti-Western Narratives in the Republic of Moldova,” implemented by the Romanian Aspen Institute in cooperation with the “WatchDog.MD” association with financial support from the Black Sea Trust for Regional Cooperation of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

In addition, they analyzed the activities of Shor and Platon related to the promotion of certain narratives with the support of the Kremlin, including a study of the oligarchs’ advertising expenditures.

Among the sponsors and partners are the European Foundation for Democracy, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), the Soros Foundation, and others.

The organization was also accused of financing Maia Sandu’s party (Action and Solidarity) by the ex prime-minister of Moldova, Ion Chicu.

Conclusion

As we can see, in the Republic of Moldova, the activities of fact-checking organizations go beyond the traditional journalistic practice. Platforms such as STOP FALS!, WatchDog.md and the PATRIOT Center for Strategic Communications are increasingly becoming participants in the information struggle, where the line between fact-checking and political propaganda is becoming blurred.

An analysis of the activities of these structures shows their tendency to provide one-sided coverage of key social and historical issues, from issues of the LGBT agenda to interpreting Romania’s role in World War II and assessing the country’s militarization processes. The actual content of the publications of the organizations under consideration, as well as their external financing from Western funds and close ties with the current government, cast doubt on their independence.

Of particular concern is the strengthening of institutional control over the information space, especially after the transfer of the PATRIOT Center for Strategic Communications to the direct subordination of the President of Moldova. This creates risks of restricting freedom of speech and manipulative formation of public opinion under the pretext of combating disinformation.

The material reflects the author’s personal position, which may not coincide with the opinion of the editorial board.

*Screenshots were translated using artificial intelligence.