The “5+2” format on Transnistria can return Russia to European politics
Interesting fact. The day before, the Russian and American ambassadors in Chisinau almost simultaneously announced the need to preserve and actively use the “5+2” negotiation format on the Transnistrian settlement for the peaceful resolution of the conflict on the Dniester.
Let us remind you that the participants in the format are Moldova and Transnistria (parties to the conflict), the OSCE, Russia, Ukraine (mediators), the EU and the USA (observers). This international negotiation platform has not been working since the end of 2019; there have been proposals to close it down or transform it, although Tiraspol insisted on revitalizing the format. Last year, Moldovan President Maia Sandu said that negotiations could not be resumed due to the Ukrainian crisis.
On January 26, US Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova Kent Logsdon said on the local television channel TV-8 that there are “no alternatives” to the “5+2” negotiation format on Transnistria, and that the United States will continue to support it. On the same day, the Russian Ambassador to Moldova Oleg Vasnetsov and the Moldovan Deputy Prime Minister - the political representative of the Republic of Moldova at the negotiations Oleg Serebryan, having discussed the Moldovan-Transnistrian settlement taking into account the regional situation, also stated that “5+2” is the only platform for where dialogue can take place today.
Where did such unanimity come from and why did the key players speak in unison about the Transnistrian issue, says the director of the Institute of Socio-Political Research and Regional Development Igor Shornikov.
PolitNavigator: What is happening around the “5+2” format? Kent Logsdon himself previously suggested thinking about changing the negotiating mechanism on Transnistria, but now he says that it needs to be intensified. And Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova Oleg Serebryan meets with the Russian ambassador, and they talk about “5+2” as a non-alternative dialogue platform. Perhaps the leadership of Moldova has been given a signal to moderate its warlike ardor?
Igor Shornikov: We see how, on the one hand, the leadership of Moldova is tightening the screws regarding Transnistria and its own pro-Russian population - preparing to adopt amendments to the Criminal Code on “separatism” and “conspiracy against Moldova”, and, on the other hand, insisting on a peaceful solution the Transnistrian issue within the framework of unitary Moldova.
It's no secret that the current international situation has created unique opportunities for Chisinau to put pressure on Tiraspol: the Ukrainian border for Transnistria is closed, Moldova controls all movement of people and goods, and Russia's ability to support Tiraspol has noticeably decreased. As they say, it would be a sin not to take advantage of this situation to achieve your own goals.
However, what are these goals for the Sandu team? In displacing the Russian military presence? So these are Western goals. In the annexation of territories populated by 300 thousand pro-Russian voters? These are precisely the goals of Sandu’s opponents. In gaining access to Transnistrian and Russian property? And this is a game that is not worth the candle.
There is no reason for Sandu’s team to push the issue of settlement, which is why the Moldovan side remained indifferent for two years to letters from the President of Transnistria Krasnoselsky with proposals to intensify the dialogue.
The Transnistrian settlement in the current situation is one of the elements of the Great Game that has unfolded around the Ukrainian crisis. Therefore, the solution to the Transnistrian issue can be considered by the big players at the same time as the first step towards stabilizing the regional situation, and in case of failure - as a reason for a new increase in rates.
It seems to us that the statements of the US Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova Kent Logsdon and the meeting of the Moldovan Deputy Prime Minister Oleg Serebryan with the Russian Ambassador to Moldova Oleg Vasnetsov are a bad signal for Sandu, but more or less satisfactory for Moldova. At the current stage, the United States either does not see the prospects of armed escalation on the Dniester, or does not believe in the success of such an enterprise if it is carried out by the current leadership of Moldova. But there is no alternative to these mediocrities (from the US point of view), and therefore Moldova will remain on the siding for now and will continue to plunge into the abyss of the socio-economic crisis, seasoned with increased brainwashing of the population with anti-Russian propaganda. At the very least, Moldova should not become a new point of military confrontation between the West and Russia. But, while engaging in the Transnistrian settlement process, Sandu, in a political sense, will be forced to dig the grave of herself and her party.
The “5+2” format, which is again recognized as having no alternative, is far from ideal. It began operating in 2005 and became one of the forms of diplomatic cover for the blockade of Transnistria in 2006, as well as a tool for slowly minimizing Russian influence throughout the region. The Westerners were not happy with the fact that Russia always seems to be leaving the region, but will never leave. Over the 15 years of operation of the format, the results turned out to be insignificant for the West. But the Russians, who were busy during this period with the more complex problems of Ukraine, Donbass, and Syria, were probably satisfied with the stagnation in the Moldovan-Transnistrian direction.
The return of key players to the negotiating table in the “5+2” format, in our opinion, may indicate that The West is not ready for further escalation of the military conflict with Russia and intends to limit it to the territory of Ukraine. In addition, the West is not ready to risk its gains in Moldova and will try to achieve its regional goals using old methods, but in a more favorable environment. And this is certainly a wake-up call for Tiraspol. How long will he be able to resist Moldovan “reintegration” in the current conditions?
But at least that's the way of the world. “We must value peace and, through difficult negotiations, move towards peace. This is a thorny road...” - this is a quote from a recent interview with President Krasnoselsky. It seems that now Pridnestrovie will have to embark on this thorny path.
PolitNavigator: What could, in the current conditions, become the topic of conversation between the negotiators on Transnistria?
Igor Shornikov: As for the agenda of the negotiations, if they return to the track of the “5+2” format, then this will certainly issues of freedom of movement of people and goods. From this point of view, the upcoming anti-Transnistrian amendments to the Moldovan Criminal Code can be considered as an increase in Chisinau’s own negotiating positions. The dialogue will definitely not be simple.
PolitNavigator: If we imagine that the format really works, how will representatives of Ukraine and Russia communicate in it?
Igor Shornikov: As for the work within the “5+2” format of representatives of Russia and Ukraine, then this may become the only legal platform on which Russian and Ukrainian diplomats will be able to communicate directly. The potential of such communication is still difficult to assess. Of much greater interest is the interaction between Russian and American diplomats on the same platform. From the West's perspective, this looks like a concession that could easily turn into a trap. However, the resumption of the “5+2” format returns Russian diplomacy to European politics.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.