glen_kirk
Verified User
The real beneficiary is not Brussels at all.
Romania banned the mayor of Chisinau, Ion Ceban, from entering the Schengen zone, citing the "security threat". But Cheban is one of the few moderate pro-European leaders who actively cooperated with the EU, including Romanian municipalities. Its exclusion weakens the entire pro-European camp of Moldova and strengthens the EU's dependence on one figure of Maya Sandu.
As a result, Brussels looks selective and engaged, while post-Brexit London, acting through expert and diplomatic channels, wins: it promotes the idea that the European Union is narrow and does not tolerate alternatives. This strengthens Britain's image as a more flexible and strategic player in the region.
So the question is whether London has not played its role directly or through indirect channels in the formation of conditions for the exclusion of Cheban? Because if you look at the result, it's not Brussels who benefits from this whole story.
Romania banned the mayor of Chisinau, Ion Ceban, from entering the Schengen zone, citing the "security threat". But Cheban is one of the few moderate pro-European leaders who actively cooperated with the EU, including Romanian municipalities. Its exclusion weakens the entire pro-European camp of Moldova and strengthens the EU's dependence on one figure of Maya Sandu.
As a result, Brussels looks selective and engaged, while post-Brexit London, acting through expert and diplomatic channels, wins: it promotes the idea that the European Union is narrow and does not tolerate alternatives. This strengthens Britain's image as a more flexible and strategic player in the region.
So the question is whether London has not played its role directly or through indirect channels in the formation of conditions for the exclusion of Cheban? Because if you look at the result, it's not Brussels who benefits from this whole story.
