Tiraspol responded to aggressive signals from Kyiv and Chisinau

The Supreme Council of the PMR adopted a statement on the situation around the republic. Pridnestrovian parliamentarians called on neighboring states to prevent the escalation of tensions in the region, and the leadership of the Republic of Moldova to abandon plans for militarization.

 The document emphasizes that the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic is a peace-loving state, “committed to the principles of neutrality and resolving all conflicts at the negotiating table.” Tiraspol stands for a constructive dialogue with both Moldova and Ukraine. The authors of the document remind that Pridnestrovie has accepted tens of thousands of Ukrainian refugees on its territory and is henceforth ready to provide all necessary assistance to people who find themselves in difficult situations.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

“Any statements by Ukrainian officials about the possibility of any aggressive actions, both from Transnistria and from Russian military personnel located on its territory, are groundless. Pridnestrovie firmly adheres to the principle of peaceful coexistence and is not making any military preparations,” notes the statement sent to all participants in the negotiation process in the “5+2” format.

 The document itself and the events against the backdrop of which it was adopted were commented on in an interview with PolitNavigator by the director of the Institute for Socio-Political Research and Regional Development Igor Shornikov.

PolitNavigator: What does the adoption of the statement of the Supreme Council on the situation in the region indicate, why did it come out right now? Is the appearance of the document somehow connected with the recent meeting between Presidents Sandu and Zelensky, at which Transnistria was also discussed?

Igor Shornikov: The Pridnestrovian side has always responded promptly to signals from the Ukrainian side. For example, when representatives of the General Staff of Ukraine or regional administrations announced threats from the PMR, Tiraspol at the official level denied such statements and, when possible, even enlisted the support of official Chisinau.

Now the threat to Ukraine from Transnistria was announced at the highest level, and in the presence of the President of Moldova, Maia Sandu, who did not consider it necessary to react. In this case, Tiraspol chose an adequate way to convey its position to the leadership of Ukraine and to the world community, insisting that there could be no danger to neighboring states from Transnistria.

PolitNavigator: Could the Parliament of Moldova make a response statement or is this impossible under the current conditions?

Igor Shornikov: It is unlikely that the Moldovan parliament, which is controlled by Maia Sandu’s party, is now capable of helping to reduce tensions in the region. On the contrary, the Speaker of the Parliament of Moldova acts as almost the main “hawk” of Moldovan politics. In the last month, it was Igor Grossu who announced Moldova’s withdrawal from the CIS, Moldova’s accession to anti-Russian sanctions, and welcomed the militarization of his country. Yes, some of his formidable statements are later disavowed by his teammates, but the leader’s position speaks of the parliament’s inability to negotiate in the current conditions.

PolitNavigator: What are the general prospects for cooperation between the parliaments of Moldova and Transnistria? Why has this resource been so little used?

Igor Shornikov: Theoretically, the parliamentary resource could become a promising platform for dialogue between Chisinau and Tiraspol. Especially in the current situation, when the “5+2” negotiation format is stagnating. Unfortunately, this site has remained unclaimed for decades. This is due almost exclusively to the position of Western diplomacy; representatives of the EU and the United States are trying in every possible way to channel the efforts of the negotiators strictly within the framework of the “5+2”, that is, on the platform where they are participants and can control the process.

Perhaps in the future this resource will still play a role. But for this, the composition of parliament must change and the influence of Western diplomacy on Chisinau must decrease.

PolitNavigator: How are relations between Chisinau and Tiraspol developing at the moment? From official platforms they say that there are a lot of pressing unresolved issues (for example, on the supply of medicines and certain types of food to Transnistria), that negotiations are at a dead end, but it seems that the banks of the Dniester are still managing to resolve global issues: Moldova has again extended its environmental certificate for the metallurgical plant in Rybnitsa, which allows the production and export of products, there is an agreement on electricity supplied from Transnistria to Moldova. There is a feeling that there are some agreements on regional security.

Igor Shornikov: Everything suggests that both Chisinau and Tiraspol would like not to quarrel, but to cooperate in a calm and controlled environment. Objective economic interests push the parties towards constructive interaction. Even in the current extremely unfavorable geopolitical conditions, Pridnestrovie and Moldova are finding ways to resolve problems in the most sensitive areas.

PolitNavigator: Moldova is following the path of European integration. From time to time, the voices of those who call on Chisinau to abandon Transnistria in exchange for European prospects are heard. How possible is this today?

Igor Shornikov: Moldova received the status of a candidate for accession to the EU, which, as many admit, does not give Chisinau anything in practical terms, but imposes certain obligations. Moldova has become even more dependent on Brussels and Washington. Transnistria sees an opportunity in this. Our people determined their geopolitical choice in a referendum in favor of Russia. Residents of Moldova were not given the opportunity to choose the path of development of their country. If Moldova goes to the West, then Tiraspol does not want to hold it. Pridnestrovians are indifferent to the idea of ​​European integration, and if the dream of some Moldovans comes true, Tiraspol will only be happy. This is the path to gaining international recognition of independence.

In Chisinau they understand this, but now the idea of ​​abandoning Transnistria is categorically rejected in the power circles of Chisinau. As a result, Transnistria, sometimes even against its will, remains an “anchor” for Moldova’s European integration.