By Oleksandar Levchenko
Russian attacks on Ukraine are increasingly creating direct risks for neighbouring states. The incident on 5 October 2026 at the Moldovan-Ukrainian border demonstrated that the consequences of Russian strikes are no longer limited to Moldova’s airspace but are also affecting critical border infrastructure.
On the morning of 5 October, during a Russian attack on Ukrainian infrastructure, a projectile fell near the Moldovan border crossing at Palanca–Maiaki–Udobne. According to Moldova’s Border Police, after striking the ground, it ricocheted and hit a scheduled passenger bus that was near the barrier. The bus and the border-control booth were damaged, while a border police officer sustained minor injuries. The border crossing was temporarily suspended and reopened later that day after the area had been inspected.
The incident occurred against the backdrop of a series of violations of Moldovan airspace. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas said in Brussels that Europe had experienced a surge in Russian hybrid attacks, sabotage attempts and airspace violations in recent weeks. According to Kallas, Russian missiles and drones are once again violating the airspace of European states, which she described as unacceptable.
IF YOU VALUE CIVIL’S WORK, SUPPORT IT. Donate TODAY.
From Information Pressure to Physical Risks
For Moldova, the problem lies not only in individual incidents but in their cumulative effect. Russian air attacks on Ukraine create a persistent risk that its airspace will be crossed, debris or munitions will fall on its territory, and civilian infrastructure will be damaged.
On 3 October, Moldovan authorities reported the passage of several aerial targets amid a large-scale Russian attack on Ukraine. Some of the objects exploded or fell on Moldovan territory, causing damage to civilian and agricultural facilities. Such incidents reinforce Moldova’s sense of vulnerability. Although the country is not a party to the war, it is increasingly exposed to its direct consequences.
Moscow, for its part, denies responsibility for such incidents and maintains that accusations against Russia are not supported by sufficient evidence. It is therefore important to distinguish between direct responsibility for a specific incident and the broader political context in which Russian attacks on Ukraine are creating growing risks for neighbouring states.
For Chisinau, however, the issue also has a strategic dimension. The Kremlin has long employed a combination of political influence, information campaigns, economic pressure and support for pro-Russian political forces in Moldova. Following the country’s continued pro-European orientation, Moscow, according to assessments by Moldovan and Western political institutions, continues to seek opportunities to weaken this course.
In this context, military risks may complement Russia’s traditional instruments of hybrid influence. Even if a particular missile or drone falling on Moldovan territory was not a deliberate attack on Moldova, the recurrence of such incidents produces a political effect: the war is gradually becoming a factor in the everyday lives of the Moldovan population.
This dynamic could contribute to growing public fears about closer integration with the European Union. From Moscow’s perspective, a situation in which European integration becomes associated by parts of Moldovan society not only with economic opportunities but also with increased security risks could serve its interests.
Why Moldova Matters for European Security
The significance of the Palanca incident lies not in the scale of the damage but in where it occurred. The border crossing is part of critical transport infrastructure facilitating the movement of people and goods between Ukraine and Moldova. Its temporary closure demonstrated how even a relatively limited incident can disrupt cross-border logistics.
For the EU, this presents a broader challenge. Moldova is a candidate for EU membership, and its stability is directly linked to the security of Europe’s eastern flank. Destabilisation in Moldova could have consequences well beyond the country itself, ranging from increased migration and humanitarian pressures to additional pressure on Romania, which is both an EU and NATO member.
Geography is particularly important. Moldova lies between Ukraine and Romania and remains an important component of the security architecture of the Black Sea region. Any prolonged deterioration of the situation in the country would create additional uncertainty for EU states bordering the war zone.
Russian airspace incidents affecting Moldova should therefore not be viewed solely as collateral consequences of the war against Ukraine. They demonstrate how the geography of security risks is gradually expanding beyond the immediate battlefield.
A Challenge for EU Enlargement Policy
The Moldovan case also has an important political dimension. If a candidate country for EU membership is repeatedly exposed to military and hybrid risks, security inevitably becomes part of the broader debate over European enlargement.
In the past, enlargement policy was largely centred on economic integration, democratic reforms and institutional adaptation. In the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war, this is no longer sufficient. For countries located in close proximity to Russia or an active war zone, the prospect of European integration is increasingly connected to physical and cyber security, border protection and the resilience of critical infrastructure.
This creates a dilemma for Brussels. The EU needs to support Moldova in resisting external pressure without turning the European integration process itself into an element of military confrontation. At the same time, an insufficient response could create vulnerabilities that Moscow could exploit to intensify political and psychological pressure.
From Diplomatic Support to Security Resilience
Under these circumstances, EU support for Moldova requires a broader security dimension. The issue is not only political statements following another violation of Moldovan airspace, but the long-term strengthening of the country’s capabilities.
Priorities could include enhanced airspace monitoring, the development of counter-drone capabilities, cybersecurity, protection of critical and border infrastructure, strategic communications and countering disinformation. Some of these measures can already be incorporated into existing European mechanisms supporting Moldova.
At the same time, the EU response should focus not only on mitigating the consequences of individual incidents but also on strengthening Moldova’s resilience to sustained external pressure. The less capable a single airspace incident, cyberattack or information operation is of paralysing state institutions or critical infrastructure, the fewer opportunities there are to use such instruments as levers of political influence.
The Palanca incident should therefore be viewed as a warning about the emerging geography of European security risks. Russia’s war against Ukraine is no longer confined to its direct participants. Its military, economic and hybrid effects are increasingly reaching neighbouring states.
For Moldova, this means strengthening its own resilience. For the European Union, it means reconsidering its approach to the security of candidate countries. If European integration is to remain a strategically viable process, the security of states seeking to join the EU will increasingly need to be treated as an integral part of that process.
Oleksandr Levchenko is a Ukrainian diplomat, independent analyst and professor at the State Tax University in Ukraine. He served as Ukraine’s ambassador to Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (2010–2017) and as a consul in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1993–1997). During the war, he has written some 5,000 articles on Russia’s aggression against Ukraine for online media outlets in nine countries.
Written for CIVIL Today.
IF YOU VALUE CIVIL’S WORK, SUPPORT IT. YES, YOU.
Your support helps us report independently, sustain democratic dialogue, expose disinformation and hybrid threats, and defend human rights and freedom of expression.
Support for independent journalism starts with you.
Support CIVIL. Donate TODAY.
