Dodon’s UN Statements Is a Challenge to Moscow or a Deliberate Step?

RTA regular expert Sergey Cheban believes that Igor Dodon’s words about the withdrawal of Russian troops from Moldova are not what they seem at first glance Yesterday was one of the main events of the week-long visit of the President of Moldova Igor Dodon to New York. The head of state made a big speech at the United Nations General Assembly, where he spoke about the situation in Moldova, the unique consensus of the country’s political forces and the Transdniestrian settlement. Dodon’s speech was initially in the spotlight. For the first time in a long time, a pro-Russian politician represented Moldova at the UN, besides the President, not the Prime Minister, as before. In recent years, everyone has become accustomed that the Moldovan authorities at the UN keep returning to one narrative: about the Russian aggression, hybrid war and the main thing – about need of withdrawal of the Russian troops from the left-bank territory of the RM. Therefore, the main intrigue was whether Dodon would repeat the fairly anti-Russian theses of his predecessors. At least, the camp of coalition partners expected him to. On the eve of the President’s speech, Prime Minister Maia Sandu said bluntly: “If the President makes statements that do not reflect the position of the government and especially the ACUM bloc, we will renounce these statements, including about the removal of the army and ammunition from the Transdniestrian region”. Yesterday, the Moldovan leader finally delivered his speech, and, interestingly, that only raised more questions. Dodon, though in a more diplomatic form, still talked about the withdrawal of the Russian military: “I believe that the key to our success is the promotion of the concept of international recognition of the military neutrality of the Republic of Moldova together with finalizing the process of removal and disposal of ammunition remaining on the territory of the Republic of Moldova since the former USSR. Once the final political settlement of the Transdniestrian conflict is reached, there will be no need to carry out a peacekeeping mission on our territory”. Interestingly, Igor Dodon’s statements to the UN generally corresponded to the overall strategy of Chisinau. However, it is easy to see that the situation in Moldova has changed dramatically in the last month and therefore Dodon’s words may not be what they seem. In recent years, Chisinau almost unresponsively demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops from different tribunes. Moscow was usually silent and sometimes reminded that Russian troops were participating in the peacekeeping operation and guarding weapons depots in Cobasna. In August everything changed: at the invitation of Igor Dodon Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu arrived in Chisinau, who first proposed to start the disposal of dangerous weapons in depots in Transdniestria. This move by Moscow fairly came as a surprise to both the pro-European camp in Moldova and international partners. All supported the intention of Russia in words, but in fact it got them thinking: a few weeks later, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov confirmed that the Kremlin offers to dispose of ammunition with Russian equipment, by Russian specialists according to Russian standards, but on the territory of Moldova. According to Lavrov, the preparation will take a year, it became clear that the process of disposal will last at least five years. In Brussels, Washington and Chisinau there is a discussion on how to deal with the Russian initiative. Everyone feels there’s got to be a catch. In this situation Igor Dodon at the UN offers bulletproof logic: Moldova is a neutral country, but not in practice; Russian troops must be withdrawn in order to maintain neutrality; Russian troops will not leave as long as there are depots in Transdniestria. The conclusion to which the President lead us is: the faster the ammunition from Transdniestria is disposed of, the faster the Russian troops will leave the region. Apparently, Dodon pursues a simple goal that is to promote the Russian initiative as quickly as possible, to prevent the pro-European bloc from going into reverse and beginning to resist Moscow’s proposals. It is no coincidence that the Moldovan leader openly said that disposal can start not in a year, but even earlier – why delay? In fact, Igor Dodon quite gracefully evaded criticism from anyone: ACUM bloc considered his UN speech acceptable, and he almost played into the hands of Moscow, although wrapping the ball in a typical anti-Russian rhetoric of Chisinau. One can only guess whether the Moldovan right-wingers managed to recognize Dodon’s smart bluff, and whether the Russian partners saw the true intention of the Moldovan leader.