Moldova is taking new steps towards eliminating the Russian military presence on the Dniester
The Parliament of the Republic of Moldova announced that it is going to denounce the next agreements within the CIS - on military observers and collective peacekeeping forces, as well as an agreement on supporting structures for the fight against terrorism. At the same time, news appeared that Ukraine would not participate in the negotiations on the Transnistrian settlement in the “5+2” format due to Russia’s participation in them.
Are these events connected, how dangerous is the situation for Transnistria, for the trilateral peacekeeping mission on the Dniester? Expert opinions are in the PolitNavigator survey.
Alexander Korinenko, political scientist, Chisinau:
– In relation to Transnistria, there are coordinated actions by Chisinau and Kyiv, who want to break the negotiation format and oust the Russian Federation from it. Please note that the puzzles are foldable.
Thus, on June 1, 2023, at the summit of the European Political Community, which was held in Moldova, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky states that the new negotiation format will be presented “after Ukraine’s victory,” then on June 27, the chief negotiator from Moldova, Oleg Serebryan, says that During an armed conflict, the “5+2” format will not work; now Ukraine is officially withdrawing from the negotiation process, thereby breaking the “5+2” format, and Moldova, in turn, denounces the agreement on military observers and collective peacekeeping forces.
In my opinion, soon Chisinau and Kyiv may, as an ultimatum, demand a change in the peacekeeping mission on the Dniester and declare the presence of the Russian peacekeeping contingent on the banks of the Dniester illegal. This will nullify all those achievements, unfortunately small, but still existing in the negotiation process. The greatest achievement is more than 30 years of peace on the banks of the Dniester, ensured by a joint peacekeeping mission. I would not like the issue of peace to be put on the agenda for both banks of the Dniester.
Andrey Safonov, political scientist, Tiraspol:
– For Pridnestrovie itself, it is Moldova’s decisions on peacekeeping forces that are not dangerous. Our situation is not based on the CIS decision, but on a tripartite agreement - Russia, Moldova and Transnistria. By the way, the peace agreement of July 21, 1992 has nothing to do with the CIS and its structures. This is also the fruit of the work of politicians and diplomats from Moscow, Chisinau and Tiraspol. But only!
The same applies to military observers. We only have those from Ukraine in the amount of 10 officers who served in the security zone of the Moldovan-Transnistrian conflict. They also appeared not as a result of a decision at the Commonwealth level, but through Ukraine’s accession to the settlement agreements. And Ukraine, although it recalled observers in 2022, did not withdraw from the corresponding agreement.
In the case of conflict resolution, decisions are made based on consensus. Without such a consensus, it is impossible to change the negotiating format or the peacekeeping format. If you want to go out, please go out! But other peacekeepers will serve as if nothing had happened. But no decision was made within the CIS on the Moldovan-Pridnestrovian settlement.
The danger here is different. Every week, as a rule, the Chisinau authorities withdraw from several agreements within the CIS. If they succeed, the ruling circles of the Republic of Moldova will tear the country out of the Commonwealth and completely transfer it under the control of the West and Romania. Here, on the Right Bank of the Dniester, either NATO troops or troops of Romania, a NATO member, may appear. And this will already be fraught with clashes with parts of the PMR and Russia, which are stationed in Transnistria.
In this case, there will be no buffer between NATO and Russia. The conclusion is simple: as long as the current administration has a monopoly in Moldova, the situation on the Dniester will remain objectively unstable, and the danger of a new conflict is higher than it was before 2019, when the current leaders of the Republic of Moldova took the helm of the state ship of Moldova into their hands.
Igor Shornikov, Director of the Institute of Socio-Political Research and Regional Development (Tiraspol), Associate Professor of the Financial University (Moscow)
– Moldova denounces the Agreement on military observer groups and collective peacekeeping forces in the Commonwealth of Independent States, signed in Kiev on March 20, 1992, as well as the Protocol on the temporary procedure for the formation and deployment of military observer groups and collective peacekeeping forces in conflict zones between states and in participating states Commonwealth of Independent States, signed on August 4, 1992.
The denunciation of these agreements, of course, destroys the system of collective security that has developed within the CIS. This system was especially relevant in the early 1990s, when the Soviet Union was collapsing and not a single republic was immune from collapse. The new states had to quickly agree on the rules of interaction in the new conditions.
The conflict in Transnistria, which was in a hot phase at the time of the conclusion of these agreements, showed that the threats to the new nationalist states were quite tangible. Note that Ukraine, observing the events in Transnistria, at that stage moderated its nationalist frenzy, but if they had gone too far, they could have already had similar events in Crimea, Odessa and the Donbass. Kiev clearly took the Transnistrian experience into account.
Security mechanisms within the CIS later became less relevant, the CSTO appeared, the OSCE Mission was opened in our region, and NATO launched its work throughout the entire post-Soviet space within the framework of the Partnership for Peace program. That is, the security gap quickly turned out to be filled and these agreements within the CIS have long looked like rudiments. However, in our case, the symbolism of what is happening is important. It is known that there is no such thing as too much security, so Chisinau’s denunciation of these agreements is another signal to Moscow that Moldova is aimed at eliminating the Russian military presence in the region and is taking real steps towards this.
The abolition of the two treaties does not directly affect Russia’s peacekeeping operation on the Dniester. The document that regulates the presence of Russian military personnel here is a bilateral agreement between Russia and Moldova; it is in no way connected with the CIS.
It seems to us that Chisinau and the West behind it are now only testing Russia’s reaction to the decrease in the level of security in the region. They are, of course, considering the option of denouncing the Russian-Moldovan agreement of June 21, 1992 on the principles of a peaceful settlement of the armed conflict in Transnistria, but they are afraid to do this because they cannot calculate how Moscow will react. It will be good if this intrigue continues for them, but it is important here that the Russian reaction or lack thereof is not perceived as weakness and readiness to make concessions.
In the case of Transnistria, the fates of more than 200 thousand citizens of the Russian Federation permanently residing in the PMR and about half a million Russian compatriots are at stake. Creating a threat to them in the context of the approaching presidential elections in Russia is, in their opinion, a way to undermine the position of the Russian president within the country. This is probably their tactical task for the coming months.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.