This chapter considers the events and causes, as well as the consequences of, the so-called Moldavian “Revolution” of April 7, 2009. These events were denoted by many experts as a “Twitter revolution”. However, the role of Twitter and other social networks was greatly overestimated. The majority of the participants in the protests were called together by the leaders of the Moldavian opposition through their corporate (controlled) media and administrative and inner-party resources. Tkachuk et al. provide an overview of the main context of the events and introduce their main participants: political leaders, parties, and social groups. In their view, the previous process of formation of the political elite in post-Soviet Moldova was a critical factor framing these events. The most essential feature of this elite is an overwhelming focus on foreign political forces, especially on Romania. The ‘Romanian factor’, beyond its lasting effect over the situation in Moldova, also played a direct ‘instigative’ role in the events of 7 April. The 7 April events were only possible because the previous two decades had led to the formation of two radically opposite and thus intransigent points of view on possible pathways of development for Moldova. The first one, chronologically, is the Romanian unionist one (that is, seeking a national union of Moldavia with Romania, which, at the same time, was increasingly identified with pro-western values). The second one proceeded from the need and the possibility for Moldova to maintain its independent status by taking a balanced position towards Russia and Europe. At the same time, there were many causes and triggers behind the April 7 events. It was a tangle of internal and external factors. Our impression is that a few quite different forces came to entwine here, each pursuing its own purposes. The synergy behind the developments on 7 April 2009 is a product of this entwinement. In addition, it is important to emphasize that the western media and western experts often represent the 7 April events as a revolution organized to overturn the ‘anti-democratic communist regime in Europe’s poorest country’. Tkachuk et al. believe this position is a major distortion of the real state of affairs. Moldova may have been the poorest country in Europe in the 1990s, but in 2001–2009, under the Communists of Moldova’s rule, Moldova saw a strong breakthrough in its development efforts and improved living standards. Moreover, Moldova’s communists were pro-European since 2002 at least. Tkachuk et al. conclude that the essential element in the prehistory of the 7 April events is the modernization process during the previous eight years, which was led by the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM).