Will Moldova cope with the Russian threat?

Semion Satkowski, Mikhail Bezhenev Specifically for RTA On June 22, 2018, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution titled “Complete and unconditional withdrawal of foreign military forces from the territory of the Republic of Moldova”. 64 members of the organization voted for the document, including the US and European countries, as well as states looking for further rapprochement with the European community. As known, Moldova persistently worked to ensure that the thesis on withdrawal of Russian troops from Transdniestria is supported at the UN level. Chisinau proposed its draft resolution in the summer of 2017, however, perhaps because of the Moscow’s opposition, this issue was removed from the agenda of the General Assembly in September. But 9 months later, the UN adopted the document with substantial support from the UN participants. The leadership of Moldova acted consistently. On 2 May 2017, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova declared illegal the presence of foreign military bases or military contingents on the territory of the Republic, implying the Russian armed forces stationed in Transdniestria. Then, Russian diplomats who participated in activities of the Joint Control Commission, a joint body leading the peacekeeping operation, were expelled from Moldova. On the one hand, this led to a practical weakening of the Russian delegation to the Commission, on the other, it became an important political signal to both Moscow and European partners. In July 2017, on the eve of the 25th anniversary of cessation of the armed phase of the Transdniestrian conflict, the Moldovan parliament adopted a statement on withdrawal of Russian troops from Transdniestria. Thus, Chisinau continued pressure on Russia, and the subsequent submission to the UN platform was a natural step in this way. Certainly, all steps taken by Chisinau have a clearly visible political overtones and all together look like a powerful ultimatum to Moscow. The tactics of increasing pressure on the Russian Federation through such a sensitive and landmark factor as troops in Transdniestria is of great practical importance for Moldova. First, it is a signal for all international partners: a small post-Soviet country needs support in its struggle against the survivals of Moscow’s military and political hegemony in the regional space. Chisinau in this way emphasizes the pro-European democratic direction and the status of a promising ally of Brussels and Washington in Eastern Europe. Secondly, and in our opinion, this is no less important, in spite of the long-term Moldovan domestic political crisis, the ruling political elite together with the opposition parties showed considerable consolidation by supporting these measures. Thirdly, it is a resounding message for Russia that they should consider Chisinau, and their interests in the region need urgent revision. The determination shown by the Moldovan politicians in making their point definitely deserves respect. It is also worth appreciating that the leadership of the Republic of Moldova in recent years has managed to articulate the concept and basic principles of a neutral status enshrined in the country’s constitution. It should be recalled that Moldova’s longstanding military cooperation with the US, Romania and other countries is subject to biased interpretations by Russian media, Moscow officials and leadership of the unrecognized Transdniestria. The Kremlin emphasizes that the neutral status of Moldova means the country’s non-entry into military-political blocs, namely, NATO. In the patriotically-minded expert community of Russia there is a thesis that the rapprochement between Chisinau and the North Atlantic Alliance may lead to Russia’s revision of its position on the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova, or, more simply, to recognition of the ‘PMR’ independence. The Kremlin’s sensitivity to the topic of military and political influence in Europe did not allow Moldova to effectively oppose pressure for many years. However, the situation began to change after Moldova took the course for European integration in 2009 and received substantial long-term support from its international partners. Moreover, in 2014 Moldova found the most reliable ally in the fight against the Russian threat – Ukraine. Chisinau declared a new understanding of ‘neutrality’ at the international level, which is that the neutrality of the Republic of Moldova means absence of military bases of foreign countries and their associations in its territory. The Moldovan Constitutional Court resolved that participation in international military missions does not run counter to the neutrality of the republic, and this means that all forms of the current military cooperation between Chisinau and NATO and the EU states are legitimate. And vice versa, any permanently deployed units of Russia are outside the law. From this point of view, it is of no fundamental importance what mission they conduct and to what extent they are involved in the performance of peacekeeping or security functions. In addition, analysis of the current situation, including the international expertise on Moscow’s activity in modern Moldova, shows that the previously existing political positions of the Russian Federation have a steady tendency to reduce and marginalize. Today, mass concentrated support of Russian interests by Moldovan political parties and social movements is in fact ruled out. It should be noted that the concept of neutrality of the Republic of Moldova can serve as an example of a unique consensus of all political forces in the country. Neutrality as freedom from foreign military bases is understood by both the pro-European democratic government and President Igor Dodon, who, in the conditions of the upcoming parliamentary elections in Moldova this autumn, is intensely demonstrating his closeness to Vladimir Putin. However, do not recklessly label the Moldovan president as a pro-Russian politician. On the contrary, even in public rhetoric, he clearly notes that he is a pragmatic patriot who defends exclusively Moldovan interests. Not long ago, Dodon said he hoped to restore normal relations between Russia and the West: Moldova will benefit from a normal dialogue between the two centers of power. Apparently, the political elite of Moldova are united by a common vision of the republic’s future as a neutral state. Igor Dodon, as the only Moldovan politician received in Russia, tries to convey this message to the Russian partners in a ‘soft’ way, offering Moscow not only to join the discussion, but also to become a participant in the system of international guarantees of Moldova’s neutrality. Obviously, this option is more attractive than staying under constant pressure, which strengthens Russia’s international isolation. As known, Russian and Transdniestrian representatives are actively declaring that Chisinau demands withdrawal of peacekeeping forces, which for more than 25 years have been saving the parties from resumption of hostilities. There is certain logic in this thesis – servicemen of the Operative Group of Russian Troops are part of the RF peacekeeping contingent. Plus, Moscow appeals to the need to protect Soviet military depots in the Transdniestrian village of Kolbasnaya/ Cobasna, while refusing to consider repeatedly offered options to withdraw their contents outside the RM. However, in this situation the Chisinau’s positions are more convincing. Having received support from the UN General Assembly, Moldova through its president offers an alternative to confrontation, diplomatically inviting Moscow to a civilized discussion on withdrawal of troops, offering to discuss the concept of RM’s ‘neutrality’ and related stages and parameters of demilitarization and subsequent transformation of the peacekeeping operation. The efforts of the Republic of Moldova in the seemingly unequal struggle for liberation from Russian military and political influence are already finding their support among the country’s international partners. Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova Pavel Filipp has recently discussed this issue with US Senators Ron Johnson and Chris Murphy in Washington, thanking the United States for its support in the UN General Assembly of the draft resolution on withdrawal of Russian troops from Transdniestria. The fact that the Moldovan Prime Minister was received in the United States right after the historic vote at the UN, confirms Washington’s readiness to provide consistent support for the further steps of Moldova to oust Russian troops from its territory. The Russian Foreign Ministry called the UN General Assembly resolution on withdrawal of Russian troops from Transdniestria “blatant propaganda”. But that’s great. It was precisely the broad international reach and attention it evoked towards the issue of Russian troops withdrawal from Transdniestria that Moldova had been lacking for many years. Now they need to maximize international pressure while simultaneously offering Moscow the opportunity to save face through involvement in these processes. And the concept of international neutrality of Moldova is very useful here. To be continued….