Transnistria: The situation is changing dramatically - Chisinau is escalating
Moldova, which until recently proudly bore the title of “European success story,” has in recent years been rather regarded as a source of regret among politicians, experts and journalists – as the most striking example of a post-Soviet state that, for a quarter of a century, has not figured out what to do with its sovereignty.
For 25 years, Chisinau proudly assured that it would “fill Moscow with tomatoes”, build a prosperous state, that the European course is the path to prosperity, and that very soon the Republic of Moldova will become a member of the European Union... In fact, Moldova has mediocrely lost its industrial potential and has not yet decided on a development strategy country, actually gave state power into the hands of the oligarchs and, as a result, received the offensive label of a “captured state” from their European friends. The only thing that Chisinau has succeeded in is learning to blame all troubles on the “hand of Moscow.” And also - to start a war against Transnistria, which at the dawn of the 90s did not want to remain part of the anti-Russian nationalist Moldova.
Since those years in relation to Transnistria, Chisinau did not stop the war - it was hidden behind statements of readiness for negotiations and took on the character of a hybrid, using methods of economic, transport, information and diplomatic blockade of Transnistria. In addition, for obvious reasons, since 2014, Ukraine became Moldova’s ally in this undeclared war, after which the blockade of the PMR assumed truly threatening proportions - “sanctions” of neighboring states began to be expressed in the criminal prosecution of officials and entrepreneurs of Transnistria, tightening of regimes for the passage of goods and citizens (especially Transnistrian Russians). The situation on the border with Ukraine has worsened, where Kyiv has gathered armed forces under the pretext of “protection from the Russian threat.”
In the first half of 2016, the situation in the Moldovan-Transnistrian settlement was stabilized to some extent – the joint efforts of Russia and Germany, which chairs the OSCE, made it possible to intensify dialogue in the international negotiation format “5+2”.
The press started talking about the fact that the Transnistrian problem could become a certain point of consensus for Moscow and Berlin, a definite “start” for warming relations, which became noticeably more complicated after the Ukrainian crisis. Both Russian and German diplomats emphasized that negotiations on Transnistria should bring specific socially significant results. Therefore, the document signed by all participants in the “5+2” format in Berlin in June of this year actually contained an order to the parties to the conflict to reach a compromise on a number of problems - such as the admission of Pridnestrovian cars to international traffic, apostille of higher education diplomas issued in the PMR etc.
As a result, even before the Berlin “5+2” round, and especially after it, in the Moldovan media, some experts close to the government structures of Moldova began to “sound the alarm”, arguing that Moscow and Berlin are harshly forcing Chisinau to make unjustified concessions to Tiraspol, contrary to the constitution and sovereignty of the Republic of Moldova. It is easy to guess that the Moldovan authorities were in no hurry to implement the document adopted as a result of the “5+2” round, actually blocking the work on implementing its provisions.
Moreover, the matter was not limited to the usual sabotage of negotiations. Already in July, Moldova - of course, together with Ukraine - began a blockade of railway imports into Transnistria, forcing economic entities of the republic to import goods exclusively through the territory of the Republic of Moldova. There is a real threat of a fuel crisis, primarily for industry and agriculture.
Thus, hiding behind “complaining” rhetoric about pressure from Moscow and Berlin, Chisinau actually organized a new attack on Transnistria.
Another interesting thing is that recently a number of representatives of various NGOs in Moldova, primarily pro-Western ones, signed the “Civil Society Statement on the Red Lines of the Transnistrian Settlement.” The text of the “document” again spoke of unprecedented pressure on Chisinau, “the isolation of Moldova in the negotiation process through multiplicative pressure on the constitutional authorities”, it was argued that the conflict had escalated due to “illegal foreign military presence” (meaning Russian peacekeepers and the Task Force of Russian troops guarding Europe's largest weapons depot of the former Soviet Army).
The main message of the declaration is a call to the authorities of the Republic of Moldova to negotiate “only with those representatives of the Transnistrian region who have not committed crimes, have not persecuted citizens of the Republic of Moldova and do not pursue goals that contradict the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova”, “not to recognize elements of statehood of the separatist Transnistrian region or in the “5+2” format, or beyond it.” In fact, the statement of Moldovan NGOs calls for a complete abandonment of dialogue with Transnistria, outlawing all Tiraspol officials, up to the top leadership of the PMR (against some of whose representatives, by the way, criminal cases have already been initiated in Moldova). In fact, such a “cry from the soul of civil society” looks like a call to establish “constitutional order” in relations with Transnistria and not to conduct any negotiations outside the legislative framework of the Republic of Moldova.
What is behind such an uncompromising and obviously provocative action by Moldovan NGOs? Senior researcher at the Center for Post-Soviet Studies at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Andrey Devyatkov, notes that the declaration appeared because within the framework of the latest rounds of negotiations on the Transnistrian settlement in the “5+2” format and the Bavarian Conference on Confidence-Building Measures, unity of international mediators was achieved regarding the action program , which Chisinau and Tiraspol should undertake in order to strengthen mutual trust.
Andrey Devyatkov, senior researcher at the Center for Post-Soviet Studies at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, candidate of historical sciences:
“More than once, including in the Moldovan parliament, statements have been made that Moldovan negotiators do not have a clear mandate to conduct a dialogue with Pridnestrovie. In essence, they found themselves in a paradoxical situation. The thing is, that no one today among the Moldovan top leadership, especially on the eve of the presidential elections, is ready to take on any political responsibility in the Transnistrian issue and openly make concessions to Tiraspol. In addition, none of the Moldovan leadership wants to directly object to international partners, who are currently interested in reducing conflict on the Dniester against the backdrop of the situation in Ukraine, as well as in Armenian-Azerbaijani relations.
In these conditions, Moldovan diplomats find themselves “between two fires,” especially under pressure from international mediators calling on them to be constructive. In order to have, in turn, the opportunity to appeal to something, this declaration on “red lines” in the settlement was initiated, which, as it were, comes from representatives of the civil society of Moldova and which is thus intended to strengthen the position of Moldovan diplomats within the framework of various international formats of settlement negotiations , as well as in Moldova itself. In this regard, the main idea of the document is simple: the settlement of the conflict is possible solely on the basis of the political capitulation of Tiraspol, therefore no dialogue will be conducted. But there is no dialogue, there are no obligations and no responsibility for their implementation.”
In summary, the expert concludes that such a strategy is “a peculiar form of controlled conflict,” noting that the declaration will not have far-reaching consequences.
At the same time, it should be noted that Since 2014, tension in the region of the Moldovan-Transnistrian conflict has been artificially intensified. At the same time, the most alarming analogies can be traced behind the call of the civil society of Moldova to respect the “constitution” of the country - the establishment of “constitutional order” back in 1992, the President of the Republic of Moldova Mircea Snegur called the massacre in the Transnistrian city of Bender, unleashed by Moldovan troops, Romanian mercenaries and “volunteers” who received substantial money for every killed Pridnestrovian.
Armenian journalist and political commentator Hayk Khalatyan notes that the statement by “representatives of civil society” in Moldova is of concern, as it carries “a message to the authorities of the republic to abandon the negotiation process with Transnistria and intensify the blockade of the PMR.” At the same time, in his opinion, it is possible that this, together with other hostile actions of Moldova towards the PMR, could “lead to a violent clash.”
Hayk Khalatyan, journalist, political commentator, Armenia:
“It is possible that such statements are preparing the public opinion of Moldova for such a development of events. And the West, represented by the United States, the EU and Germany, which chairs the OSCE, is asked to turn a blind eye to all violations of existing agreements by Chisinau. At the same time, the statement also offers a reason why this should be done - in order to counter the “Russian threat.”
All this is very reminiscent of Azerbaijan’s policy towards Nagorno-Karabakh. And Moldovan “social activists” must remember that the consequence of the rabid campaign of Armenophobia carried out by the “civil society” of Azerbaijan under the direct orders and support of the Azerbaijani authorities has become the inevitability of a violent clash. The Azerbaijani authorities themselves have become hostages of the sentiments they created in society and are forced to take aggressive steps, such as the April “four-day war” - which brought nothing to official Baku except huge human losses and an even tougher position in the negotiation process between Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.
It would not hurt Moldovan social activists to familiarize themselves with the experience of another famous post-Soviet “reintegrator” – ex-President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili. And in general, it is better to study international law, where, in addition to territorial integrity, there is another very important principle - the right of peoples to self-determination. And judging by international events (Kosovo, South Sudan, East Timor, Abkhazia, South Ossetia), this is the dominant principle. By the way, in the European Union itself, where the Moldovan social activists who signed the statement are so keen, they prefer to solve such issues in a civilized manner with the help of a referendum, rather than forceful actions and blockades. The referendum on Scottish independence was evidence of this.”
Even more alarming is the certain “synchronicity” of the actions of Chisinau and Kyiv, which has become especially clear in recent years.. Thus, the other day, the Ambassador of Ukraine to the Republic of Moldova, Ivan Hnatyshyn, in an interview with Ukrinform, compared Transnistria with “uncontrolled areas of Donbass.” The Ukrainian diplomat also emphasized that Ukraine fully supports Chisinau’s demands for the withdrawal of Russian weapons and equipment “from the territory of Moldova” - we are again talking about Russian peacekeepers and the OGRF in Transnistria, and also unequivocally stated that Kiev insists on the “reintegration” of Transnistria into Moldova .
Such rhetoric is, of course, not new. Another thing is frightening - literally on the same days, units of the Ukrainian Border Service on the Ukrainian-Transnistrian border were transferred to an enhanced border security regime in connection with the introduction of the “yellow” level of terrorist threat - and this despite the fact that since 2014 the Transnistrian border has already gathered an unprecedented number of armed formations.
As Denis Denisov, director of the Ukrainian Institute of CIS Countries, notes, for Ukraine the opportunity to destabilize Transnistria is tempting in itself, since the existence of the PMR for the current Kyiv “is unacceptable and carries a number of threats.”
Denis Denisov, director of the Ukrainian Institute of the CIS countries:
“Firstly, the PMR represents a part of the Russian world that did not accept the nationalist position of Moldova and rebelled with arms in hand, defending its identity and the right to independently decide how to develop and by what rules to live. For today's Ukraine, this is a completely unnecessary example, in the context of the ongoing civil war in Donbass. Secondly, the PMR demonstrates to the whole world that it is possible to exist and develop virtually under conditions of blockade and in conditions of limited recognition, which can also be used in relation to the Donbass republics. Thirdly, the history of the negotiation process between Moldova and the PMR clearly demonstrates that such events can be carried out for more than one year and last for decades, which is completely unacceptable for the authorities in Kyiv regarding Donbass.
For today's Ukraine, the PMR is considered a potential threat, since it allows itself to implement policies based on national interests, and not like its neighbors, who have actually abandoned their sovereign foreign and domestic policies. As long as there is a political regime in Ukraine whose main goal is to build “Anti-Russia,” the PMR will be the object of attacks and provocations from Ukraine, as a state that has defended its right to be part of the Russian-Orthodox civilization.”
It is also worth noting that the intensification of unfriendly rhetoric on the part of Transnistria’s neighbors leads to the conclusion that the fragile mutual understanding reached between Moscow and Berlin in the process of the Moldovan-Pridnestrovian settlement causes acute rejection among certain geopolitical players. The consensus on Transnistria clearly contradicts the interests of those who do not benefit from stability in this region. Thus, the PMR is in fact the only conductor of Moscow’s interests in the northern Black Sea region - along with this, presidential elections will be held in Moldova in the very near future, which, according to analysts, pro-Russian forces have every chance of winning. In this context, taking the situation around Transnistria out of control will allow the West to effectively discredit the actions of Moscow, which, obviously, cannot help but stand up for the unrecognized republic. It is symptomatic in this regard that the recent joint exercises of Pridnestrovian and Russian security forces caused a particular resonance in practically neighboring Romania, which is rightly considered a US vassal in Eastern Europe.
It must be stated that over the past year and a half, Russia has not been able to be drawn into a violent confrontation in Europe. An extreme example is the provocations in Crimea, which the Russian Federation also successfully stopped, without succumbing to the temptation of a harsh, disproportionate response. Meanwhile, time moves inexorably, and Moscow’s foreign policy is confidently strengthening its position, primarily in the Syrian and Turkish directions. Against this background, a provocation in Europe, capable of drawing the Kremlin’s attention to Moldova and, again, Ukraine, becomes urgently necessary for the West.
It is clear that loud statements by Moldovan NGOs, designed to create the appearance of a “public demand” for tough actions against Transnistria, as well as support for such ideas from neighboring states, are a kind of prologue to the beginning of a new round of destabilization around the PMR, strengthening the blockade and provoking military tension. In the very near future, the situation on the Dniester risks changing in the most dramatic way.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.